Bill C-97 (Historical)

Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures

Part 1 implements certain income tax and related measures by
(a) providing a temporary enhanced first-year capital cost allowance rate of 100% in respect of eligible zero-emission vehicles;
(b) removing the requirement that property be of “national importance” in order to qualify for the enhanced tax incentives for donations of cultural property;
(c) providing a temporary enhanced first-year capital cost allowance rate in respect of a wide range of depreciable capital properties, including a temporary first-year capital cost allowance rate of 100% in respect of
(i) machinery and equipment used for the manufacturing or processing of goods, and
(ii) specified clean energy equipment;
(d) ensuring that social assistance payments under certain programs are non-taxable, are not included in income for the purposes of determining entitlement to income-tested benefits and credits and do not preclude an individual from being considered a “parent” for the purposes of the Canada Workers Benefit;
(e) repealing the use of taxable income as a factor in determining a Canadian-controlled private corporation’s annual expenditure limit for the purpose of the enhanced scientific research and experimental development tax credit;
(f) providing support for Canadian journalism;
(g) introducing the Canada Training Credit;
(h) amending the Income Tax Act to reflect the current regulations for accessing cannabis for medical purposes;
(i) eliminating the requirement that sales be to a farming or fishing cooperative corporation in order to be excluded from specified corporate income for the purposes of the small business deduction;
(j) extending the mineral exploration tax credit for an additional five years;
(k) ensuring that business income of a communal organization retains its character when it is allocated to members of the communal organization for tax purposes;
(l) increasing the withdrawal limit under the Home Buyers’ Plan and amending how it applies on the breakdown of a marriage or common-law partnership;
(m) extending joint and several liability for tax owing on income from carrying on business in a TFSA to the TFSA’s holder and limiting the TFSA issuer’s liability for such tax;
(n) supporting employees who must reimburse a salary overpayment to their employer due to a system, administrative or clerical error;
(o) expanding tax support for electric vehicle charging stations and electrical energy storage equipment;
(p) allowing joint projects of producers from Canada and Belgium to qualify for the Canadian film or video production tax credit; and
(q) ensuring appropriate pension adjustment calculations in 2019 and subsequent tax years for registered pension plans that reference the enhanced Canada Pension Plan.
Part 2 implements certain goods and services tax/harmonized sales tax (GST/HST) measures proposed in the March 19, 2019 budget
(a) to provide GST/HST relief in the health care sector by relieving the GST/HST on supplies and importations of human ova and importations of in vitro embryos, by adding licenced podiatrists and chiropodists to the list of practitioners on whose order supplies of foot care devices are zero-rated and by exempting from the GST/HST certain health care services rendered by a multidisciplinary team of licenced health care professionals; and
(b) by introducing amendments to ensure that the GST/HST treatment of expenses incurred in respect of zero-emission passenger vehicles parallels the income tax treatment of those vehicles.
Part 3 implements certain excise measures proposed in the March 19, 2019 budget by changing the federal excise duty rates on cannabis products that are edible cannabis, cannabis extracts (including cannabis oils) and cannabis topicals to $0.‍0025 per milligram of total tetrahydrocannabinol contained in the cannabis product.
Part 4 enacts and amends several Acts in order to implement various measures.
Subdivision A of Division 1 of Part 4 amends the Bank Act to, among other things, provide members of federal credit unions with different methods of voting prior to meetings and provide additional exceptions to the requirement that a proxy circular be sent in order to solicit proxies. The Subdivision also makes a technical amendment to An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to financial institutions.
Subdivision B of Division 1 of Part 4 amends the Canadian Payments Act to allow the term of the elected directors of the Board of Directors of the Canadian Payments Association to be renewed twice, to extend the term of the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of that Board and to allow the remuneration of certain members of the Stakeholder Advisory Council.
Subdivision A of Division 2 of Part 4 amends the Canada Business Corporations Act to require a corporation, on request by an investigative body that has reasonable grounds to suspect that certain offences have been committed, to provide to the investigative body a copy of its register of individuals with significant control or information in that registry that is specified by the investigative body. It also requires those investigative bodies to keep certain records in relation to their requests and to report annually in respect of those requests.
Subdivision B of Division 2 of Part 4 amends the Criminal Code to add the element of recklessness to the offence of laundering proceeds of crime.
Subdivision C of Division 2 of Part 4 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to, among other things,
(a) allow the Governor in Council to make regulations defining “virtual currency” and “dealing in virtual currencies”;
(b) require the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (“the Centre”) to disclose information to the Agence du Revenu du Québec and the Competition Bureau in certain circumstances;
(c) allow the Centre to disclose additional designated information that is associated with the import and export of currency and monetary instruments;
(d) provide that certain information must not be the subject of a confidentiality order made in the course of an appeal to the Federal Court; and
(e) require the Centre to make public certain information if a person or entity is deemed to have committed a violation or is served a notice of a decision of the Director indicating that a person or entity has committed a violation.
Subdivision D of Division 2 of Part 4 amends the Seized Property Management Act to authorize the Minister to, among other things,
(a) provide consultative and other services to any person employed in the federal public administration or by a provincial or municipal authority in relation to the seizure, restraint, custody, management, forfeiture or disposal of certain property;
(b) manage property seized, restrained or forfeited under any Act of Parliament or of the legislature of a province; and
(c) dispose of property when it is forfeited to Her Majesty in right of Canada and, with the consent of the government of the province, when it is forfeited to Her Majesty in right of a province, and share the proceeds.
The Subdivision also makes consequential amendments to the Criminal Code, the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act and the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act.
Division 3 of Part 4 amends the Employment Equity Act to require federally regulated private-sector employers to report salary information that supports employment equity reporting beyond salary ranges, including making wage gap information by occupational groups more evident.
Division 4 of Part 4 authorizes payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for climate action support and in relation to infrastructure as well as to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and to the Shock Trauma Air Rescue Service.
Division 5 of Part 4 amends the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to, among other things,
(a) require all parties in a proceeding under the Act to act in good faith; and
(b) allow the court to inquire into certain payments made to, among other persons, directors or officers of a corporation in the year preceding insolvency and imposes liability on the directors for those payments.
The Division amends the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act to, among other things,
(a) limit the relief provided in an order made under section 11 to what is reasonably necessary and limit the period staying all proceedings that might be taken in respect of the company to 10 days;
(b) allow the court to make an order to disclose an economic interest in respect of a debtor company; and
(c) require all parties in a proceeding under the Act to act in good faith.
The Division also amends the Canada Business Corporations Act to, among other things,
(a) set out factors that directors and officers of a corporation may consider when acting with a view to the best interests of that corporation; and
(b) require directors of certain corporations to disclose certain information to shareholders respecting diversity, well-being and remuneration.
Finally, the Division amends the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 to clarify that a pension plan is not to provide that, among other things, a member’s pension benefit or entitlement to a pension benefit is affected when a plan terminates. It also authorizes a pension plan administrator to purchase an immediate or deferred life annuity for former members or survivors in order to satisfy an obligation under the plan to provide a pension benefit arising from a defined benefit provision.
Division 6 of Part 4 amends the Canada Pension Plan to authorize the Minister of Employment and Social Development to waive the requirement for an application for a retirement pension in certain cases.
Division 7 of Part 4 amends the Old Age Security Act to provide, starting in July 2020, a new income exemption for the purposes of calculating the Guaranteed Income Supplement. The new exemption excludes the first $5,000 of a person’s employment and self-employment income as well as 50% of their employment and self-employment income greater than $5,000 but not exceeding $15,000.
Division 8 of Part 4 amends the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Public Service Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act to increase the surplus limit that applies to the Canadian Forces Pension Fund, the Public Service Pension Fund and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Fund, respectively, to 25% of the amount of liabilities.
Subdivision A of Division 9 of Part 4 amends the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to permit trustee licensing fees to be paid on a date to be prescribed by regulation and to permit trustees to maintain electronic records instead of retaining original documents.
Subdivision B of Division 9 of Part 4 amends the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act to allow for the addition, by regulation, of units of measurement for electricity and gas sales and distribution.
Subdivision C of Division 9 of Part 4 amends the Food and Drugs Act to improve safety and enable innovation by introducing measures to, among other things,
(a) allow the Minister of Health to classify certain products exclusively as foods, drugs, cosmetics or devices;
(b) provide oversight over the conduct of clinical trials for drugs, devices and certain foods for special dietary purposes;
(c) provide a regulatory framework for advanced therapeutic products; and
(d) modernize inspection powers.
Subdivision D of Division 9 of Part 4 amends the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act to limit the application of the Act to intoxicating liquors imported into Canada.
Subdivision E of Division 9 of Part 4 amends the Precious Metals Marking Act to provide that exemptions made by regulation can be either conditional or unconditional.
Subdivision F of Division 9 of Part 4 amends the Textile Labelling Act to provide that exemptions made by regulation can be either conditional or unconditional.
Subdivision G of Division 9 of Part 4 amends the Weights and Measures Act to authorize, by regulation, the use of new units of measurement and to update the definitions of the basic units of measurement in accordance with international standards.
Subdivision H of Division 9 of Part 4 amends the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act to streamline the process for reviewing claims for exemption, to allow for the suspension and cancellation of exemptions and to harmonize the provisions of the Act that allow for the disclosure of confidential business information with similar provisions in other Department of Health Acts.
Subdivision I of Division 9 of Part 4 amends the Canada Transportation Act to authorize the electronic administration and enforcement of Acts under the Minister of Transport’s authority and to promote innovation in transportation by authorizing the granting of exemptions for the purpose of research, development and testing.
Subdivision J of Division 9 of Part 4 amends the Pest Control Products Act to, among other things, allow the Minister of Health to
(a) expand the scope of a re-evaluation of, or a special review in relation to, a pest control product rather than initiating a new special review; and
(b) decide not to initiate a special review if the aspect of a pest control product that would otherwise prompt such a review is being, or has been, addressed in a re-evaluation or another special review.
Subdivision K of Division 9 of Part 4 repeals the provisions of the Quarantine Act that relate to the laying of proposed regulations before Parliament.
Subdivision L of Division 9 of Part 4 repeals the provisions of the Human Pathogens and Toxins Act that relate to the laying of proposed regulations before Parliament.
Division 10 of Part 4 amends the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act to establish the Management Advisory Board, which is to provide advice to the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on the administration and management of that police force.
Division 11 of Part 4 amends the Pilotage Act to, among other things,
(a) set out a clear purpose and principles for that Act;
(b) transfer the responsibility for making regulations from the Pilotage Authorities, with the approval of the Governor in Council, to the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport;
(c) transfer responsibility for enforcing that Act and issuing and charging for licences and certificates from the Pilotage Authorities to the Minister of Transport;
(d) set out an enforcement regime that is consistent with other Department of Transport Acts;
(e) provide that regulatory matters for the safe provision of compulsory pilotage services not be addressed in service contracts between the Pilotage Authorities and pilot corporations;
(f) allow the Pilotage Authorities to impose charges other than by making regulations;
(g) require that service contracts between pilot corporations and the Pilotage Authorities be publicly available; and
(h) prohibit pilots, or users or suppliers of pilotage services, from sitting on the board of directors of a Pilotage Authority.
The Division also makes consequential amendments to the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act and the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada Act.
Division 12 of Part 4 enacts the Security Screening Services Commercialization Act. That Act, among other things,
(a) authorizes the Governor in Council to designate a body corporate incorporated under the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act as the designated screening authority, which is to be solely responsible for providing aviation security screening services;
(b) authorizes the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority to sell or otherwise dispose of its assets and liabilities to the designated screening authority;
(c) regulates the establishment, imposition and collection of charges related to the provision of aviation security screening services; and
(d) provides for the dissolution of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority.
The Division also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Division 13 of Part 4 amends the Aviation Industry Indemnity Act to authorize the Minister of Transport to undertake to indemnify
(a) NAV CANADA for acts or omissions it commits in accordance with an instruction given under an agreement entered into between NAV CANADA and Her Majesty respecting the provision of air navigation services to the Department of National Defence; and
(b) any beneficiary under an insurance policy held by an aviation industry participant.
Division 14 of Part 4 amends the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada Act to clarify that the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada has jurisdiction in respect of reviews and appeals in connection with administrative monetary penalties provided for under the Marine Liability Act.
Division 15 of Part 4 enacts the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants Act. That Act creates a new self-regulatory regime governing immigration and citizenship consultants. It provides that the purpose of the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants is to regulate immigration and citizenship consultants in the public interest and protect the public. That Act, among other things,
(a) creates a licensing regime for immigration and citizenship consultants and requires that licensees comply with a code of professional conduct, initially established by the responsible Minister;
(b) authorizes the College’s Complaints Committee to conduct investigations into a licensee’s conduct and activities;
(c) authorizes the College’s Discipline Committee to take or require action if it determines that a licensee has committed professional misconduct or was incompetent;
(d) prohibits persons who are not licensees from using certain titles and representing themselves to be licensees and provides that the College may seek an injunction for the contravention of those prohibitions;
(e) provides the responsible Minister with the authority to determine the number of directors on the board of directors and to require the Board to do anything that is advisable to carry out the purposes of that Act; and
(f) contains transitional provisions allowing the existing regulator — the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council — to be continued as the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants or, if the existing regulator is not continued, allowing the establishment of the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants, a new corporation without share capital.
The Division also makes related amendments to the Citizenship Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to double the existing maximum fines applicable to the offence of contravening section 21.‍1 of the Citizenship Act or section 91 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
In addition, it amends those Acts to provide the authority to make regulations establishing a system of administrative penalties and consequences, including of administrative monetary penalties, applicable to certain violations by persons who provide representation or advice for consideration — or offer to do so — in immigration or citizenship matters.
Finally, the Division makes consequential amendments to the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.
Division 16 of Part 4 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to
(a) introduce a new ground of ineligibility for refugee protection if a claimant has previously made a claim for refugee protection in another country;
(b) provide that if the Federal Court refuses a person’s application for leave to commence an application for judicial review, or denies their application for judicial review, with respect to their claim for refugee protection or their application for protection, the date of that refusal or denial is the first day of the period that must pass before a request or application referred to in section 24, 25 or 112 of that Act may be made; and
(c) authorize the Governor in Council to make an order regarding the processing of applications for temporary resident visas, work permits and study permits made by citizens or nationals of a foreign state or territory if the Governor in Council is of the opinion that the government or competent authority of that state or territory is unreasonably refusing to issue or unreasonably delaying the issuance of travel documents to citizens or nationals of that state or territory who are in Canada.
Division 17 of Part 4 amends the Federal Courts Act to increase the number of Federal Court judges.
Division 18 of Part 4 amends the National Housing Act to allow the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to acquire an interest or right in a housing project that is occupied or intended to be occupied by the owner of the project and to make an investment in order to acquire such an interest or right.
Division 19 of Part 4 enacts the National Housing Strategy Act. That Act provides for, among other things, the development and maintenance of a national housing strategy and imposes requirements related to the mandatory content of the strategy. It also establishes a National Housing Council and requires the appointment of a Federal Housing Advocate. Finally, it requires the submission of an annual report by the Advocate on systemic housing issues and the submission of periodic reports by the designated Minister on the implementation of the strategy and the achievement of desired housing outcomes.
Division 20 of Part 4 enacts the Poverty Reduction Act, which provides for an official metric and other metrics to measure the level of poverty in Canada, sets out two poverty reduction targets in Canada and establishes the National Advisory Council on Poverty.
Division 21 of Part 4 amends the Veterans Well-being Act to expand the eligibility criteria for the education and training benefit in order to make members of the Supplementary Reserve eligible for that benefit.
Division 22 of Part 4 amends the Canada Student Loans Act and the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act to extend the interest-free period on student loans by six months and to provide for transitional measures in respect of individuals to whom student loans were made and who ceased to be students at any time during the six months before the amendments come into force.
Division 23 of Part 4 amends the Canada National Parks Act to establish Thaidene Nene National Park Reserve of Canada and to decrease the hectarage of certain ski areas.
Division 24 of Part 4 amends the Parks Canada Agency Act to provide that, starting on April 1, 2021, any balance of money appropriated to the Parks Canada Agency that is not spent by the Agency in the fiscal year in which it was appropriated lapses at the end of that fiscal year.
Subdivision A of Division 25 of Part 4 enacts the Department of Indigenous Services Act, which establishes the Department of Indigenous Services and confers on the Minister of Indigenous Services various responsibilities relating to the provision of services to Indigenous individuals eligible to receive those services.
Subdivision B of Division 25 of Part 4 enacts the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Act, which establishes the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, confers on the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations various responsibilities relating to relations with Indigenous peoples and confers on the Minister of Northern Affairs various responsibilities relating to the administration of Northern affairs.
Subdivision C of Division 25 of Part 4 makes amendments to other Acts and repeals the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Act.
Subdivision D of Division 25 of Part 4 makes amendments to the First Nations Land Management Act, the First Nations Oil and Gas and Moneys Management Act and the Addition of Lands to Reserves and Reserve Creation Act.
Division 26 of Part 4 enacts the Federal Prompt Payment for Construction Work Act in order to establish a regime to provide prompt payments to contractors and subcontractors for construction work performed for the purposes of a construction project in respect of federal real property or federal immovables and a regime to resolve disputes over the non-payment of that construction work.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Speaker’s Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

There are 57 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-97. Motions Nos. 1 to 57 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 57 to the House.

Motions in amendment

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 30.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 31.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 32.

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 33.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 34.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 35.

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 36.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 37.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 38.

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 39.

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 40.

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 41.

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 42.

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 43.

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 44.

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 57.

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 58.

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

moved:

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 198.

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 199.

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 200.

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 201.

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 202.

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 203.

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 204.

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 205.

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 206.

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 207.

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 208.

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 209.

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 210.

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 211.

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 212.

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 213.

Motion No. 34

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 270.

Motion No. 35

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 271.

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 272.

Motion No. 37

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 273.

Motion No. 38

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 274.

Motion No. 39

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 275.

Motion No. 40

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 276.

Motion No. 41

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 277.

Motion No. 42

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 278.

Motion No. 43

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 279.

Motion No. 44

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 301.

Motion No. 45

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 302.

Motion No. 46

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 303.

Motion No. 47

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 304.

Motion No. 48

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 305.

Motion No. 49

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 306.

Motion No. 50

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 307.

Motion No. 51

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 308.

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

seconded by the member for Joliette, moved:

Motion No. 52

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 308.1.

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

moved:

Motion No. 53

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 309.

Motion No. 54

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 310.

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 55

That Bill C-97, in Clause 313, be amended by

(a) replacing the section 13 that is set out in it with the following:

13 There is to be a Federal Housing Advocate whose mandate is to

(a) monitor the implementation of the housing policy and assess its impact on persons who are members of vulnerable groups, persons with lived experience of housing need and persons with lived experience of homelessness;

(b) monitor progress in meeting the goals and timelines—and in achieving the desired outcomes—set out in the National Housing Strategy;

(c) analyze and conduct research, as the Advocate sees fit, on systemic housing issues, including barriers faced by persons referred to in paragraph (a);

(d) initiate studies, as the Advocate sees fit, into economic, institutional or industry conditions—respecting matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction—that affect the housing system;

(e) consult with persons referred to in paragraph (a) and civil society organizations with respect to systemic housing issues;

(f) receive submissions with respect to systemic housing issues;

(g) provide advice to the Minister;

(h) submit a report to the Minister on the Advocate’s findings and any recommendations to take measures respecting matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction, to further the housing policy, including the progressive realization of the right to adequate housing, and the National Housing Strategy; and

(i) participate in the work of the National Housing Council as an ex officio member.

13.1 (1) The Federal Housing Advocate may conduct a review of any systemic housing issue that is raised in a submission received under paragraph 13(f).

(2) The Federal Housing Advocate may request that the National Housing Council establish a review panel to hold a hearing to review any systemic housing issue within the jurisdiction of Parliament that is raised in a submission received under paragraph 13(f).

(3) The Federal Housing Advocate must inform the person or group that presented the submission whether or not any action will be taken under subsection (1) or (2).

(4) If the Federal Housing Advocate conducts a review of the systemic housing issue, he or she must, at the conclusion of the review, provide the Minister and the person or group that presented the submission with a report setting out the Advocate’s opinion on the issue and any recommendation to take measures — respecting matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction — to further the housing policy, including the progressive realization of the right to adequate housing, or the National Housing Strategy.

13.2 (1) If the Federal Housing Advocate, at any time, identifies a systemic housing issue that is within the jurisdiction of Parliament and that is not the subject of a submission, he or she may request that the National Housing Council establish a review panel to hold a hearing to review the issue.

(2) The Federal Housing Advocate must provide a review panel with a summary of the information that formed the Advocate’s basis for identifying the systemic housing issue.

(b) adding, after the section 16 that is set out in it, the following:

Review Panels

16.1 The National Housing Council must establish a review panel if requested to do so by the Federal Housing Advocate.

16.2 (1) A review panel is to consist of three members of the National Housing Council, other than ex officio members, to be appointed by the National Housing Council.

(2) In appointing members to a review panel, the National Housing Council is to take into consideration the importance of representation on the review panel of

(a) persons who are members of vulnerable groups;

(b) persons with lived experience of housing need, as well as those with lived experience of homelessness; and

(c) persons who have expertise in human rights.

16.3 A review panel must

(a) hold a hearing to review the systemic housing issue in respect of which it was established;

(b) hold the hearing in a manner that offers the public, particularly members of communities that are affected by the issue and groups that have expertise in human rights and housing, an opportunity to participate;

(c) prepare a report that sets out the panel’s opinion on the issue and any recommendation to take measures—respecting matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction—to address the issue; and

(d) submit the report to the Minister.

16.4 The Federal Housing Advocate is entitled to make representations and present proposals for recommendations to a review panel and may, for the purpose of doing so, work with communities that are affected by the issue that is before the review panel and with experts.

(c) adding, after the section 17 that is set out in it, the following:

17.1 The Minister must respond to each report provided by the Federal Housing Advocate under paragraph 13(h) and subsection 13.1(4) within 120 days after the day on which it is received.

17.2 (1) The Minister must respond to a report submitted by a review panel under paragraph 16.3(d) within 120 days after the day on which it is received.

(2) The Minister must cause the response to be laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first 30 days after the day on which it is provided to the review panel or, if either House is not sitting on the last day of that period, on any of the first 15 days on which that House of Parliament is sitting.

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

seconded by the member for Joliette, moved:

Motion No. 56

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 334.

Motion No. 57

That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 335.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me no pleasure to rise in the House today and begin my remarks only hours after the terrible news of our flatlined economic growth in Canada. For the second quarter in a row, Canada's annualized growth has been 0.4%. On a quarter over quarter basis, it is 0.1%.

To put this into perspective, U.S. economic growth in the most recent quarter was 3.2%. Canada's economic growth in the same period was 0.4%. Our economic growth is now declining on a per capita basis. That is to say, our economy is growing more slowly than our population. The result is that more people are sharing in a smaller pie. That means per person, Canadians are now falling behind.

It just became known that Canada suffered the biggest decline in its ranking for competitiveness on the world stage. This should not surprise us. As the government has become more and more costly, the productive sectors of our economy are bearing a bigger and bigger burden.

The problem in the Liberal mindset is that the Liberals as politicians do not realize that whatever they add to the economy, they must first subtract.

Let us start with the deficit.

The government is taking about $20 billion a year out of the economy through government borrowing, and $20 billion of borrowed money does not come out of thin year. It is often a fallacy of thinking that politicians add to economic activity when they borrow cash out of the economy by simply throwing it back into the economy where they got it from.

In reality what they do when they borrow that money out of the economy is subtract it from otherwise productive investments that individuals and businesses would have made in the open and private sector economy, but instead were able to earn interest on by lending to the government. This is called the crowding out effect. It is nothing new. It is well known and it is based on general reasoning.

If we accept that government is able to fashion cash out of thin air, and it is not, then we must also accept that the money the government borrows out of the economy subtracts from economic growth. For the government members, who I see are in a haze of bewilderment at the poor economic numbers with which they are just now becoming acquainted, I will explain to them why their deficits are failing to generate economic growth.

The reason is that the Liberals are subtracting before they are adding. They are taking away before they are giving back. The transaction that happens when one takes away only to give back engenders a whole series of inefficiencies, where instead of dollars being allocated by consumers and investors, they are allocated by incompetent politicians. That is the nature of government directed economics.

Then there is taxation. The government has raised taxes on workers and businesses since taking office.

Let us start with workers. The average Canadian middle-class family is paying $800 more in income tax than it was before the government took office. That is in addition to the increase in fuel taxes through the carbon tax and payroll taxes through increased CPP premiums. All of those tax increases compound to squeeze the average Canadian family's ability to buy and invest in the private and productive economy.

Businesses are also facing increased costs. The government has increased taxes on small family businesses, and four different tax increases come to mind.

First, there are new tax penalties for family-owned businesses that share the work and earnings of their companies with family members.

Second, there are new penalties for small businesses that save within their companies. They risk losing their small business tax deduction if they have more than $50,000 a year in investment income. Naturally, this penalty causes small business owners to withdraw their investments for fear that they will be punished for earning too much return on those investments.

Third, Canada pension plan premiums have gone up, which increase the cost to the entrepreneur of hiring and employing workers. As a result, businesses have already made it clear that they are going to have to either lay people off or cut wages to compensate for the increased governmental taxation costs.

Finally, the carbon tax has made it more expensive for small businesses to operate. Heat, transportation and the functioning of factories all become more expensive as the price of fuels go up. Our farmers face new costs for all the off-farm transportation energy costs they consume. Those costs are not exempt from the carbon tax and therefore our farmers pay more.

All these costs compound on the backs of entrepreneurs and workers and are part of the reason our economy is grinding to a halt.

The government believes that it can tax and borrow its way to prosperity. Churchill examined the logic of that when he compared those who believed they could tax and borrow to prosperity to a man who believed he could fly if he got inside a bucket and pulled up as hard as possible on the handle to lift himself into the sky. What government forgets is that as much as it pulls up on the handle, it is pressing down twice as hard with its feet. In other words, the downward pressure is much more powerful than the upward pull, and that is what we are witnessing today.

The government will try, along with help from Liberal-minded commentators, to suggest that the fact our economy is no longer growing is not the Prime Minister's fault; it is part of a global phenomenon. Unfortunately, that does not bear out with the facts. Right next door, in the United States, the growth is 3.2%, a spectacular growth rate. The Americans are our biggest trading partner, responsible for 75% of our exports. If import and export are combined, the United States is equal to about 40% of our GDP. We have a $2-trillion economy and an $800-billion trading relationship with the U.S.

Therefore, the biggest global influence on economic growth in Canada is from the U.S., and that economy is growing. In fact, its economy is roaring strong.

In other words, it is not possible for the Prime Minister to externalize his failures by blaming some global phenomenon. That global phenomenon does not seem to have affected our neighbours south of the border. In fact, the global economy over the last three years has been exceptionally strong, recovering for the first time since the great global recession of 2008-09. It is Canada that is falling behind the global trend with the appalling numbers we see today.

How do we get back on track? The answer is to get government off the backs and out of the way of Canadian workers and entrepreneurs; to lower the tax burden to make work pay so workers keep more of what they earn; to remove tax increases on small businesses that are the engine of our economy; and to clear the way for large multi-billion dollar energy resource projects to go ahead, financed by the private sector, without the obstruction of government.

That is the vision of the Conservative leader. He believes we should get the government out of the way so workers and entrepreneurs can invest, grow and get ahead. It has been done before and it can be done again. That is the Conservative plan. Now let us make it happen.

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of International Development and Minister for Women and Gender Equality]

Mr. Speaker, since we formed government, Canadians have created over one million jobs; over one million families have a safe and affordable roof over their heads; 825,000 Canadians are no longer going to bed hungry at night; child poverty rates have been cut by 40%; and taxes have been lowered on the middle class and increased on the 1%. Our plan is clearly working, because Canadians are working.

Why did my hon. colleague vote against every single measure we put forward to make a real difference in the lives of Canadians?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is because the difference made them worse off. Here are the facts. The average family is paying $800 more in tax; that is middle-class folks. It is true; I will be fair. The wealthiest Canadians are paying less than ever. The wealthiest 1% paid $4.6 billion less in income tax in the year after the government took office.

Members across the way yelled out “fake news”. I find it interesting that they would accuse the Canada Revenue Agency of fake news, because it is CRA that reported a $4.6-billion decline in the tax receipts from the wealthiest 1% in the first year after the government took office. They can deny their own governmental statistics if they want, but the rest of us will trust the data as it reads.

The reality is that the rich and well-connected are benefiting from handouts by government, but working-class Canadians have had flatline wages, our economy has ground to a halt and our deficit is out of control. Canadians want a change, and they will get one.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague did not limit his remarks to the report stage and proposed amendments, so neither will I.

The Conservative leader was recently asked multiple times what he was planning to cut to balance the budget. The Conservatives brought in austerity programs, determined to balance the budget at any price, no matter how much it cost taxpayers.

While the Conservative leader has now backed away from his promise to balance the budget, my colleague, the member for Carleton, keeps asking the government when the budget will be balanced. I should have checked exactly how many times he has asked the question, but I imagine it must be hundreds.

Now I have a question for my colleague. When will his leader balance the budget, if he has the good fortune and privilege of becoming prime minister? Is it the same answer, or are they going to revert to Conservative austerity, as they often promise and as we saw under Stephen Harper?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it will happen in about half a decade. We will have our platform out well before the election, with a precise timeline to phase out the deficit. That is an easy question.

How are we going to do it? We are going to cancel future spending increases that the Liberal government has promised that are unsustainable and have no source of funds.

The member across the way does not offer an alternative to that. What he offers is massive short-term deficits, which will, in the long run, subtract from what the government is able to do for its citizens through services and programs. The member's approach to economics has been tried. It has been tried in Venezuela, Greece and to lesser degrees in countries like France, and the result is massive unemployment, massive debt, declining wages, shortages for the basic necessities of life, and massive increases in poverty. The member might claim, as Churchill put it, that the “inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings [but] the inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”

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

Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised that he did not mention the track records of the successive provincial NDP governments running the provinces with the best financial performance in the country. The Department of Finance releases these data—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order. Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Sherbrooke.

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

Mr. Speaker, apparently some of my colleagues are not well acquainted with the Standing Orders of the House of Commons and keep breaking the rules. Nevertheless, I will repeat what I was saying.

The Department of Finance releases provincial fiscal performance data. It is important to note that New Democratic provincial governments have the best fiscal performance in Canada, so I do not think my Conservative colleague is in any position to be giving me lessons on that subject, nor are my Liberal colleagues, to be sure.

Let's return to the the matter before us, the report stage study of Bill C-97. We began by reading the many motions in amendment at report stage. Members may have noticed that I presented a few, so I would like to take this opportunity to talk about those amendments.

Today we have no choice but to oppose Bill C-97 and call for the deletion of some totally unacceptable parts that have no business being in there and were harshly criticized by witnesses at the Standing Committee on Finance, which held numerous meetings about this and spent many hours on it. The fact is, some of the bill's clauses are no good and must be taken out.

Three sections the NDP wants to remove have to do with privatizing the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, whose agents are doing an excellent job of keeping passengers safe in airports and on planes across the country. The government wants to privatize this agency, a Crown corporation, in the hope of improving the services, but, given what we heard in committee, this is not the right course of action. It would be better to fund the agency and give it all the tools it needs. All revenues from airline tickets should return to the agency in full so that it can do its work properly and address the very real concerns of Canada's airports and airlines, which are at times frustrated by the agency's work—and rightly so.

That is why we need to move forward with these changes but, above all, provide this agency with resources. Privatization is never the solution, as the witnesses said. We therefore need to remove this part of the bill today to prevent this privatization. There is no doubt that this is the beginning of a federal effort to privatize air transportation and airports.

Since it took office, the government has been saying that it does not intend to privatize airports. In the beginning, the Liberals said that they were looking into the issue and were open to ideas, but they seemed to have ruled out the possibility of privatization. However, we now have proof that the government is moving forward on privatization, starting with the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority.

Another amendment that we are proposing concerns the Hazardous Products Act. The Canadian Labour Congress has sounded the alarm in this regard, because these changes will relax the rules regarding the information available to workers about the hazardous products that they have to use every day as part of their jobs. The government kowtowed to the hazardous chemicals industry and decided to relax these rules, thereby endangering the safety of workers.

The Canadian Labour Congress was very clear in that regard, saying that the government should not move forward on this and that those rules should actually be strengthened to ensure workers across the country have access to the ingredient labels of the products they come in contact with. That would allow them to respond in the short term, in case of an accident, and in the long term, since these products could have health implications that may not be detected for years.

That is why it is important to have strict regulations to keep the list of ingredients of these products for as long as possible, so that we can properly respond to any potential health problems that may affect workers.

There is nothing surprising about the other change that we are proposing, which my colleague from Vancouver East mentioned many times. It has to do with the government's callous changes to refugee protection in Canada.

The government is pleased to have the support of one Faith Goldy. In fact, she supported the Liberals' bill that would make these changes. The Liberals criticized the Conservative leader because he was seen with her, but they are only to happy to get her approval. She applauded the government for its changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act because it closes the door on refugees. With this bill, the government is creating two classes of refugees: those who entered through regular channels and those who entered irregularly. It is creating two parallel systems, which it says will do exactly the same thing. That raises questions.

The government tried to calm the waters in committee. It made amendments to this part of the bill to appease witnesses, who unanimously stated that it was a bad idea and that the government should simply withdraw this part of the bill. However, that is not enough, and only shows the amateurism of the Liberals on this issue. The government is catering to the extreme right in Canada with this measure but, in reality, what it will do is put in place a costly and useless process for doing what is already being done at the Immigration and Refugee Board.

The department was even forced to admit that there would now be a process, known as a pre-removal risk assessment, for people who entered irregularly. The government is creating this type of hearing for refugees even though the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada already exists. The government and the department were forced to admit that there would indeed be two nearly identical processes for two types of refugees.

The government is therefore creating two classes of refugees: those who are entitled to the full process, with all the rights associated with it, such as the right to natural justice, and those who are subject to an inferior process and who will have fewer rights. This will be an expedited process that will will not always grant a hearing to asylum seekers, who have the right to be heard by an impartial person. The pre-removal risk assessment is very much a part of the immigration department and cannot be compared to the work of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, which is a quasi-judicial entity respected around the world.

The government is deciding to turn a blind eye. Instead of giving the board the resources it needs to do its job, the government is creating a parallel process. It was completely indifferent to what numerous experts said in committee. There were lawyers and representatives from international refugee protection organizations, among others. There was even a refugee, who crossed the border irregularly and lost the use of his hands in the extreme cold in Manitoba. He said that under the new rules in this bill, he would have been sent back to Ghana, where his life was in danger. This is the Liberal approach, which puts refugees in danger and sends them back to their countries of origin, as one witness pointed out. The government really missed the mark in many respects with Bill C-97.

This concludes my remarks on the report stage study of the bill, the committee's work, the testimony that was heard and the reasons I must oppose the bill today. At the very least, the most problematic parts of the bill should be taken out. We hope the government will see reason, because this is its last chance to remove the contentious provisions from this bill. I hope I have the support of all my colleagues to at least fix this awful bill.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to focus on our growth of foreign direct investment into Canada, which The Globe and Mail reported last week has increased by an impressive 60%, from $32.2 billion to $51.3 billion. This happened while capital flows into developed economies elsewhere dropped by 40%, and it is 11% ahead of our 10-year average, due to a marginal effective tax rate of 13.8%, almost five full points below that of the U.S.A. and the lowest in the Group of Seven. We get to this point by trading with other nations, something the NDP has been clearly against.

Could the member comment on how important it is to develop trade to increase the revenue into our country, so that we can pay for social programs such as the ones he outlined in his speech today?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no idea where my colleague got his information. He claims that the NDP is against free trade deals, but we actually supported certain free trade agreements, even during the last Parliament. I invite him to look into it.

The NDP supports free trade agreements that benefit Canadian workers, the Canadian economy and major Canadian industries. Signing deals that jeopardize entire sectors, like the dairy sector and all the supply-managed sectors, is a bad idea.

If my colleague cannot understand that, I do not know how he sees these issues. Supply-managed farmers in Sherbrooke and the Eastern Townships are livid, because this is the third time that the government has sacrificed their sector and family farms to cater to the needs of Donald Trump and the Prime Minister, who is anxious to sign a deal with the U.S. and Mexico at all costs.

The only thing the government is doing is bowing down before the Americans, agreeing to all their demands and sacrificing major economic sectors like agriculture. Canadian farmers are furious with this government, and they will make that clear in October.

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of International Development and Minister for Women and Gender Equality]

Mr. Speaker, in my community over the last three and a half years, 1,432 families have been able to find a safe and affordable place to live as a direct result of our government's investments. The unemployment rate has been cut by nearly 50% in my riding of Peterborough—Kawartha. Thousands of families with children are better off because of the Canada child benefit.

Our government has been investing in Canadians because we know our plan works. The NDP in the previous election maintained the Conservative line to balance the budget at all costs. That plan would not have worked.

Could my hon. colleague tell me if this year the NDP is going to change its position and invest back in Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased that my colleague asked me that question. It gives me an opportunity to explain things all over again to my Liberal colleague, who keeps repeating those lines ad nauseam like some kind of mantra.

During the last election campaign, the Liberal Party forgot to pay attention to the revenue side of the ledger, which is a pretty important part of a fiscal framework. Apparently the minister is forgetting to consider the fiscal framework part of a campaign platform.

We had the courage to say that the wealthiest Canadians must pay their fair share because that enables the government to support important social programs and invest in Canadians. My colleague does not want to do the politically courageous thing. She does not want to generate revenue by making Canadians pay their fair share and fighting tax havens. She does not want to reinvest that money in Canadians.

Our fiscal framework was sound. It included additional revenue sources to finance numerous initiatives such as child care and pharmacare. My colleague is so blinded by the expenditures column that she is forgetting to take the revenue column into account.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to resuming debate and the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, I will let the hon. member know that there will only be about five minutes before we will need to interrupt her for other proceedings, but then she will have the remainder of her time when the House gets back to debate on the question.

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

Mr. Speaker, knowing that we have very little time left, I want to say it is unfortunate that deletions are necessary at this point. I want to again put on the record the deep unhappiness of many of us seeing, in Bill C-97, the use of an omnibus budget bill to bring in provisions such as the ones I am seeking to delete through this motion today.

I will sketch out that although I did submit a number of amendments, they were similar to some submitted by the New Democratic Party. I strongly support my amendments and those of the New Democratic Party that attempt to remove from this omnibus budget bill fundamental changes to how we treat immigrants and refugees.

The right of a refugee to come to Canada is enshrined in our international obligations. There has been so much said that constitutes misunderstanding about the nature of refugees. The language started cropping up under the previous government that people who showed up here with just the clothes on their backs were somehow “jumping the queue”. I remember having debates on this point with the current premier of Alberta when he was Minister of Immigration.

I used to do work in refugee and immigration law in Halifax. My clientele were such that I might have been described as specializing in ship-jumpers. In those days, the U.S.S.R. still existed. Young sailors from Soviet bloc countries would get to Halifax, literally walk off the ship and somehow find our law office.

Nowadays, as in those days, everyone is assessed. If they claim to be refugees, they have to prove they have a legitimate fear of returning to their country. We can be critical of how long it takes for people to be assessed, but we cannot assert there is something wrong with people who come to this country and claim to be refugees. They have a right to be assessed fairly and to know what their situation is.

With respect to some of my ship-jumpers, I note parenthetically that I was so happy when, about a year ago, I got a call in my office from one of the young men I had helped. He had raised his family in Ontario and started his own business. He had done extremely well for himself. He wondered if I still remembered him. Well, I remembered Nicola. I am so thrilled that within a week of jumping ship, he had a job washing dishes in Halifax. He was provided housing. It was not great housing, but it was enough for him to find his feet.

The idea now is that we turn people away because of the safe third country agreement, which did not exist at the time. The idea that the United States is still a safe third country for many refugees does not hold water. It does not make sense to stop people who are coming to Canada with just the clothes on their backs. Most of the people who come across the New York-Quebec border have been women with children. People do not know this; people do not necessarily see in the news who is coming here looking for our help.

There are people who really need our help. We have seen children die in detention is U.S. holding camps. We have seen an attitude of the U.S. president that is the opposite of the words on the Statue of Liberty, to send forward “the homeless” and “Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.... I lift my lamp”. In contrast, “I will build a...wall” is what the current president says. He does not want the “wretched refuse of your teeming shore”, although these words on the Statue of Liberty are not exactly perfect for refugees.

Setting that aside, the spirit of these words makes clear that this country, our best friend and neighbour, used to be a welcoming place. The U.S. is a country of refugees and immigrants, as are we in Canada, being on indigenous territory. We are a country of immigrants.

We should not sneak restrictive provisions into an omnibus budget bill, claiming there is a loophole, but should instead get rid of them and the safe third country agreement. We should be saying that we no longer regard the U.S. as a safe country. We should not have a safe country agreement with a country that is capable of rejecting people for all manner of reasons.

As my time is almost up, I want to turn to the second package of amendments I submitted. They were were not shared by any other party or MP. They come from my personal experience. I will return to this whenever we come back to debate on Bill C-97.

Provisions that I think others may have missed, in clauses 334 and 335, relate to the Parks Canada Agency.

When I worked in Environment Canada in the 1980s, there was no Parks Canada Agency. It was a branch of Environment Canada, like any other branch of Environment Canada and it was treated as part of the department.

The Parks Canada civil service of the day was sold the idea that it would be better off as an agency. One of the main reasons used was that it would be able to keep money that would otherwise lapse. If it were an agency, the argument was that it could hang on to more of its budget and could build more forward planning.

I do not think the Parks Canada Agency was a good idea. It has not served the interest of making it easier or more integrated in how we treat Parks Canada and its ecological integrity. After all these years, the rationale for making it an agency will disappear if we do not pass my amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands will have four minutes remaining for her speech and then the usual five minutes for questions and comments following that.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of International Development and Minister for Women and Gender Equality]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to rise on the traditional territory that the Algonquin people have called home for generations upon generations to speak on Bill C-97, the budget implementation act, 2019, No. 1, and specifically about the amendments our government is putting forward for the national housing strategy act. We are enshrining into law the right to housing as a human right and requiring every future federal government to develop and maintain a national housing strategy and to be accountable to Canadians.

Since we formed government in 2015, we have stayed focused on a plan to grow the middle class and support those working hard to join it. That plan is working.

One million jobs have been created over the past three and a half years. Middle-class Canadians are paying lower taxes. The Canada child benefit has cut the child poverty rate in the country by 40%, and 825,000 Canadians are no longer living in poverty. More than one million families have a safe and affordable roof over their heads because of the investments our government has made in housing. That is 1,432 more families in my riding of Peterborough—Kawartha with that safe and affordable roof over their heads, we are just getting started.

In November 2017, we announced Canada's first-ever national housing strategy, a 10-year plan, with $40 billion invested, to give more Canadians a place to call home.

The national housing strategy is built around the fact that housing is a human right. The strategy is grounded in the principles of inclusion, accountability, participation and non-discrimination. It will contribute to helping Canada meet its sustainable development goals by 2030, and affirms the commitment we made 40 years ago when we ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

In budget 2019, we took our commitment to housing even further. We are investing an additional $10 billion in the rental construction financing initiative, which will help people who rely on rental and social housing to find more housing opportunities. We have introduced the first-time homebuyer incentive, which will help more Canadians achieve the dream of owning a home.

Thanks to these and other investments, the national housing strategy is now a 10-year, $55-billion plan, and we are seeing the fruits of our commitment in new and renewed housing units across the country.

Next year, the Canada housing benefit will come into effect. This is an additional $2,500 a year for low-income Canadians. It is a portable fund that will follow them wherever they choose to live to ensure they have greater access to affordable housing.

Our government's investments in housing are already at unprecedented levels. However, that is not the only reason the national housing strategy act represents such a historic step in giving more Canadians a place to call home. What makes the national housing strategy act truly transformational for Canadians is that it recognizes the human rights-based approach to housing that underlies the national housing strategy and enshrines it into law.

During the committee stage of Bill C-97, our government put forward significant amendments to recognize that the right to adequate housing was a fundamental human right, affirmed in international law. We recognize that housing is critical not just to the well-being of all Canadians, but to building sustainable, inclusive communities. We have ensured that Canada's first-ever national housing strategy is not also the last, by requiring that every future federal government develop and maintain a national housing strategy that takes into account the key principle of housing as a human right.

Today is a historic day for housing in Canada because we are introducing amendments to the national housing strategy act that will further entrench and protect the commitments we have already made. These amendments would ensure greater accountability and they would give vulnerable Canadians a greater voice in housing decisions that affect them.

The national housing strategy act also calls for the creation of a federal housing advocate, supported by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Thanks to today's amendments, we are enhancing the advocate's role in identifying and researching systemic housing challenges. The advocate will report to the minister responsible for housing on these issues. Its recommendations will be tabled in Parliament, and the minister and the government will be required to respond.

The federal housing advocate will be able to consult with vulnerable Canadians, people with lived experience and experts to better understand the impact of housing need and homelessness.

The national housing strategy act would create a national housing council supported by CMHC, which will act as a focal point for housing policy discussions on the national housing strategy and will advise the minister on how to improve housing outcomes. With today's amendments, we are empowering the national housing council with even more freedom to support the federal housing advocate and to report on the findings to the minister responsible.

Today's amendments detail how the minister and the government will be required to report back to the House and to Canadians on the recommendations they receive. Simply stating that housing is a human right means nothing unless there are robust accountability and reporting mechanisms in place. With these amendments, we are doing precisely that.

These changes, to say nothing of the national housing strategy itself, came about as a result of cross-Canada consultations with thousands of people from all walks of life. Their stories, their experiences and their challenges, along with their expertise, provided us with a fuller understanding of the state of housing in Canada today.

While I am proud to say that our investments have made a significant impact on giving more Canadians a place to call home, we recognize there is much more work to do. It is thanks to the community of stakeholders, of people with lived experience, those in housing need and experts, that we are able to take the historic steps we are taking today.

I have to take this opportunity to thank my constituents in Peterborough—Kawartha for their contributions to the housing strategy development process, the minister responsible for this file and, of course, the member for Spadina—Fort York, who is forever a champion for safe, affordable housing in Canada.

Today's amendments fulfill one of Canada's key international commitments. We are a signatory to the UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. As such, we have a responsibility to meet one of the covenant's core commitments: to progressively realize the right to adequate housing as part of an adequate standard of living for our citizens.

Today's amendments also take us further in fulfilling our promise to Canadians. When we were elected in 2015, we pledged to give more Canadians a place to call home. We promised to prioritize the needs of the most vulnerable people and communities. With the national housing strategy, and now with the national housing strategy act, we are fulfilling those promises.

No other federal government has taken such a comprehensive, long-term approach to housing policy. Never before has a rights-based approach to housing been part of housing policy in this country. These are major milestones that will improve the lives of Canadians, now and for generations to come.

Personally speaking, when my family first moved to Peterborough, we did not have a place to call home. We lived in a shelter provided by the YWCA. We benefited from social housing soon after. It was having that access to safe, secure housing that allowed my family and me to put our lives back together and to feel like we have a place we can call home, and a community in which we belong.

On behalf of my family and so many millions of Canadians who have been transformed by access to housing services and by housing workers in this country, I would like to thank those who have come before us, those who have contributed to the national housing strategy and the national housing strategy act, the team that has developed this really smart approach to lifting Canadians out of poverty and creating a stronger middle class and, of course, every single member of the House who will rise in support of this transformational bill.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, obviously everyone in the House and all Canadians want all Canadians to be living in safe and secure housing. I have some questions on some of the finance issues.

The minister commented that the Liberals have invested $10 billion in housing so far, and $55 billion over 10 years. I asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer if he is able to locate this money, either spent or in the budget. His answer is no. Kevin Page, the former parliamentary budget officer, is now with the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy, which wrote a report called “How Stable is the Foundation of the National Housing Strategy?” It stated that they have been able to find only $1.5 billion spent, not $10 billion, and over the next 10 years they can locate only $5.1 billion in the fiscal framework. The report goes on to say that the NHS looks simply like a “glossy document” that is accompanied by announcements and that “unfortunately, for now, the NHS is virtually nowhere to be seen in the federal fiscal framework.”

I ask, where is the money? Where is the $55 billion over 10 years that Kevin Page and the current Parliamentary Budget Officer say is nowhere to be found?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his commitment to adequate housing in Canada. I would like to correct some of the numbers he shared.

Since taking office, we have invested more than $7 billion in housing from coast to coast to coast. It is thanks to those investments that we have helped build more than 25,000 new housing units. We have repaired, renewed and renovated more than 165,000 additional housing units. That means that, in total, our investments have led to more than one million Canadians having a place to call home. This is much more than what my colleague suggested.

In my home town in Peterborough—Kawartha, where the vacancy rate for rental housing is 1.1%, over the past three and a half years 1,432 families have been able to find a safe and affordable roof over their heads. As Dr. Dawn Lavell-Harvard, an indigenous leader and a great woman in my community, said, housing is “more than just having a roof over your head”; it is a place to keep a family together. Our housing strategy is beginning to do just that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the question my colleague asked earlier, even though she refrained from calling the figures rhetorical, unlike her colleague from the Toronto area, who characterized all of the government's figures as rhetorical without really being able to indicate which of the figures were real.

That said, I am interested in the half-baked manner in which this bill was presented and moved through the parliamentary process. The initial version made absolutely no sense and had absolutely no purpose because it did not even recognize housing as a fundamental human right. This was fixed during the study in committee, which recognized this right. There were other mistakes, including the fact that the housing advocate has no mandate or power. This was just fixed at report stage. The government is proposing amendments.

My question is about where the process went so wrong that they twice had to make a series of amendments to fix such a terrible first version of the bill. What happened during the consultations? Did they not listen to experts' recommendations? Did they just realize what people have been saying for months?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleague can appreciate that having a government that listens to Canadians, that listens to evidence, experts and people with lived experience, is a refreshing change from what we had during Mr. Harper's era of governance in this country.

I am sure my colleague can appreciate that having a government that is willing to listen to colleagues in the House, across both sides, to help ensure we do the best we can by the people who sent us here is a good thing. I am sure he can appreciate that when we work together on making important policy decisions and significant investments be the best they can possibly be, the people who sent us here and their children and grandchildren will be better off.

I would like to thank those who contributed to this process. I would like to assure my hon. colleague that the $55-billion investment that we are putting forward is now enshrined in law with the right accountability measures and with a focus on human rights, to ensure that every future federal government is held to account and hears directly from Canadians what the needs and opportunities are to secure housing for everyone.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise again to speak on the budget.

I am not going to talk about the government's betrayal of Canadians with its promise to balance the budget this year. In March alone, we saw a $15-billion deficit. I am not going to talk about how there is next to nothing to support the people in Alberta in this budget, or how this transparent government is actually hiding stuff.

In fact, in the budget, the government is hiding billions of dollars of tax increases in an opaque line called “[net] impact of non-announced measures”. It is $5.7 billion. Perhaps the government is saying that it is not tax increases but program cuts. However, seeing how the government has a definite love affair with spending, I can only assume it is tax increases.

We have actually asked the finance department what is in the $5.7 billion, in the net impact of non-announced measures. The department says it cannot answer; it is a secret. I have to ask the government why it is hiding this information from us.

I also want to respond to the comments of one of the government members earlier, bragging about the great increase in foreign investment in Canada. I just happened to be looking at an OECD report that actually shows that the net outflow of the country, since the Liberal government came to power, is $166 billion. At the same time, the net inflow into Trump's America is actually around the $500-billion mark. We can see the actions of the Liberal government.

Instead of talking about these items, I am going to read into the record some comments from my constituents in Edmonton West. These are real voices of real Canadians. These are not the voices of special interest groups that the Liberals are in such thrall of, such as Unifor, which the government is putting on the media bailout advisory board, or Leadnow or the Tides Foundation.

I am going to talk about real Canadians, not the special interest groups that control the government, such as SNC-Lavalin or Bombardier. Of course, we all remember the millions of taxpayers' dollars given to Bombardier in a handout in order for it to give bonuses to its executives. I am not going to read into the record comments on the budget from other Liberal puppet masters, such as Irving.

I want to talk about the voices of real Canadians. Their voices should be heard. I was out door-knocking recently and ran into a gentleman holding his brand new granddaughter, who was about three weeks old. He was a pipefitter. He had been employed his entire life working on pipelines. He had been laid off a while ago, and his EI had run out. He was left with nothing.

We have a government that cannot seem to make a simple decision on TMX. This is a government that killed the energy east pipeline by putting rules and regulations on Canadian and Alberta oil that we do not put on Venezuela oil or Saudi Arabia oil. The government stopped energy east because it wants to start measuring downstream and upstream emissions, and at the same time it is subsidizing jet-makers and carmakers.

This is the same government that recently gave $14 million to the wealthy owners of Loblaws. To put it in perspective, the government gave a $14-million grant to the second-wealthiest person in Canada. It was not the 1% of 1% of 1% of 1%. It gave a $14-million grant to someone who is wealthier than 37,599,098 other Canadians. The government prioritized this over helping out people in Alberta.

I met recently with someone in my constituency office, a lady named Catherine. She and her husband, and their family, used to have a thriving trucking business. Due to Liberal actions and what has been going on with trying to phase out our oil sands and our energy industry, as the Prime Minister said, their company has been driven out of business. They have lost their house. Their family has broken down. The husband has left.

These are real people and real issues that we need to hear about, not just wealthy people like Weston or the other people who are very cuddly with the Liberal Party.

I want to read into the record some of the comments I have received. Pat says, “As a senior I am worse than I was a year ago. Prices have gone up due to the carbon tax…nothing has been done for our oil situation and jobs in the West.”

Margaret says, “Worse off. Higher food prices, higher cost of utilities, carbon tax, too much tax taken off senior’s income.”

Someone by the name of J. says, “Much worse off than compared to 2017. Carbon tax is killing the Alberta economy and many businesses are closed. No pipeline being approved by the Liberals is devastating.”

It is not just energy east that the Liberals killed off. They also killed off the northern gateway. That was actually killed off by a cabinet order, a cabinet at the time that included two members from the Liberal Party of Alberta at the table, as well as the member for Calgary Centre, who is famous for saying he was going to bang on his desk for pipelines. However, tumbleweeds and crickets could be heard when they killed it off, rather than that member in the House. Edmonton's own member for Edmonton Mill Woods, supposedly the senior Liberal minister representing Alberta, was nowhere to be seen on the energy file while pipelines were killed off and Albertans have continued to suffer.

There are people who, with all of the added taxes, are worse off than a year ago. Elected officials need to lead us in a fiscally better direction and not get into bed with business to benefit themselves or only one section of the country. I have to ask why is the government constantly subsidizing carbon-producing companies while at the same time trying to drive out energy business?

Louise says, “All we have done is paid more and more taxes, losing money bit by bit.... Get the pipeline going to create jobs.” Amy says, “Worse, no question. The cost of everything has gone up and salaries have stayed the same. We are financially struggling to make ends meet. I am now a stay at home mom that works part time evenings and weekends because childcare is not affordable. This means we get no time together as a family. The government thinks we make too much money so we do not qualify for anything beyond $80/month CTB. Something has to give.”

These are the people who the government says are too well off, so that it had to take away the bus credit, too well off so that it had to take away the child tax credit, too wealthy so that it had to take away the arts credit and so well off that the mum has to work part time to keep things going. Under the Liberal government they are too well off.

At the same time, the government is giving $475 million in taxpayers' money to subsidize wealthy people to buy electric cars. For $45,000, if someone were to take a four-year loan at typical 5% to 6% interest rates, with tax, they would pay about $1,000 a month for that brand new Nissan Leaf or other electric vehicles. That is fine. If someone is wealthy enough to afford $1,000 a month for an electric car, the government will give them $5,000 cash.

However, with Elaine, who has to go back to work part time to help out her family, the government says she is making too much money. It wants her to go back to work, and it will take away the benefits she had, such as having her kids in a sports program or perhaps taking piano lessons. That is the priority of the government.

The Liberals spent a million dollars to send out politically motivated postcards to advise people about a carbon tax rebate they would get in Ontario; a million dollars. We asked if it was on recycled paper. No, it was not, although it was a postcard with environmental information. Is it recycled? No, it does not use recycled paper. Were carbon offsets used for the production or for the delivery? No, they were not, yet the Liberal government will spend a million dollars to send these out.

I want to talk about a charity that is dear to my heart in West Edmonton called the Elves Special Needs Society, which looks after the most severely disabled adults, young people and children in Edmonton. They are dear to my heart. I spend a lot of time with them. It is a wonderful organization. They have to pay the carbon tax on their facility. They look after about 200 adults. They have to pay the carbon tax. They do not get a rebate or any help from the government. A year ago, they had to go to the food bank to beg for adult diapers for their clients there, and yet somehow the government has a million dollars to spend on postcards for a rebate.

The government somehow $14 million it could give to Galen Weston, the second-wealthiest of 37 million Canadians. We have money for him, but for the most disadvantaged Canadians, the government is saying they should go to the food bank to get adult diapers to help out. It is disgraceful.

I am going to go on.

Loretta says, “Personally I am worse off and my husband is yet to see the impact of changes that the Liberal government has made for income, small business issues, and generally the stability of Canada.”

“Things are worse off than a year ago”, says Mark, because “Wages are not only staying the same but in some instances, depending on the industry, some people are taking a cut in wages anywhere from 10-40%. Have our leaders pay full taxes on their earnings and then take a pay cut like the rest of us.”

The parliamentary budget office stated last year that fully 40% of the average wage increase in Canada was solely from Ontario and Alberta raising their minimum wages. If we take away those, actual wages have dropped below the rate of inflation, and yet the Liberal government is so busy patting itself on the bank it is throwing its arms out.

Al says, “I feel we are worse off, as the old age pension has not increased for years. Utilities go up, gas goes up, food goes up, pensions don’t go up.” That seems to be the goal of the government, push everything up.

Albertans, and in fact all Canadians, are not getting ahead. They are not even staying even. They are falling behind and the government does not seem to care one whit about it.

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

Mr. Speaker, after listening to much of the content the member has put on the record, a few thoughts have come across my mind.

The Conservative government, for example, spent close to $1 billion, that is, hundreds of millions of dollars, on advertising. I argued back then that it was absolutely irresponsible.

The member opposite will identify an area. He will mention $1 million here or $1 million there. I could easily pick and choose. I could mention the $1 million plane ride for a chauffeured car to go to another country that the previous government spent because Stephen Harper did not want to use a vehicle belonging to that country. He wanted his own car flown overseas.

There are numerous examples that one could give of Conservative spending. They misspent hundreds of millions of dollars.

My question is very specific. The Conservative Party has voted against tax cuts for Canada's middle class. Could the member opposite explain how he and his party can justify voting against tax breaks for Canada's middle class? That is exactly what they did.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

That is an amusing story, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps, once it is printed in Hansard, we could put it in the fictionary of Chapters.

Data shows that the average middle-class Canadian spends about $800 to $2,000 a year more.

I want to get back to spending priorities. The government has put aside $594 million for the partisan media slush fund to help rig the next election. Do members know what was actually put aside in the Liberal budget for the dementia strategy? The Liberals put aside $50 million.

To support veterans transition post-service, the government put $136 million in its budget, but it has put aside $600 million to bail out its friends at Unifor.

The Liberals have put more money aside to subsidize wealthy people buying electric cars and the media buyout than for fresh water and ending the boil water advisory on first nations reserves. How is that responsible government? It is not. Canadians see that and will make sure that the Liberal government feels it in October of this year.

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

Mr. Speaker, one thing we have not talked enough about is tax havens and tax loopholes for the rich. That is not being dealt with in this budget.

CEOs are still getting the CEO tax loophole. They are paying less taxes than everyday Canadians who have worked hard to earn their money and pay their fair share of taxes, whereas CEOs who have had a big win are getting a deal wherein they can pay less taxes. One would think that if people receive a big win, they would pay their fair share and would be happy to support the Canadian economy, the very economy that helped them get the big win.

Eighty-eight per cent of the CEO stock option loophole goes to the 1%. That has not flowed to everyday Canadians. Regular business people do not benefit when only 12% of that CEO stock option loophole is in the hands of the other 99%.

I would argue that the CEO stock option loophole be closed and that the $1 billion should be injected back into the Canadian economy so it can do really important things, some of the things the member talked about, like ensuring that veterans get the services they deserve.

Does the member support closing the stock option loophole whereby 88% of its benefits go to the 1%? Does he agree that executives should be paying their fair share to the Canadian economy like every other working person in this nation?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Vancouver Island brings up a great point, and I agree that the government has misdirected priorities.

We have put in an Order Paper question on this. We have repeatedly heard the Minister of National Revenue say that the Liberals have hired so many people and invested half a billion dollars to crack down on overseas tax cheats. We asked who they are focusing on, and they have admitted that the majority of the new hires are going after small Canadian businesses. At committee, we asked her about this because we had a pharmacist say that the CRA was going after them for accepting a $50 gift card. The minister admitted that they are directing CRA.

We have seen the government try to push through tax increases on McDonald's workers who get a free hamburger as a duty meal. My own son, when he was working at a department store, would have to pay added tax on his two-dollar staff discount for a bag of chips. The government's priorities are so backward that only a complete change of government is going to address it.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-97, the budget implementation act, 2019, No. 1.

Canada's economy is one of the fastest growing in the G7. Since 2015, Canadians have created more than one million new jobs, with our lowest unemployment rate in 40 years. Our government is making sure that all Canadians feel the benefits of a growing economy through budget 2019, and it will continue to help middle-class Canadians get ahead.

I would like to highlight what budget 2019 means to my riding of Cloverdale—Langley City. The new Canada training benefit will help constituents in my riding gain the training and skills to be successful in their careers. With this new benefit, working Canadians will get four weeks for training every four years, up to $1,000 to help pay for the training, income support to help with everyday expenses, and the security of knowing that they will have a job to come back to when the training is done. To support this new training benefit, we have relieved small employers with EI premiums by introducing an EI small business premium rebate. The Canada training benefit will help my constituents get the skills they need to find and keep good jobs or to get retraining to help secure work for years to come.

Our government has also made big investments to support students and youth in my riding who attend Kwantlen Polytechnic University or other universities across Canada. We have doubled the number of jobs created through the Canada summer jobs program, increased Canada student grants, launched the Canada Service Corps and made huge investments in the youth employment strategy.

This summer, in Cloverdale—Langley City, the Canada summer jobs program has allocated $616,519 in funding and has approved 154 jobs so that our youth can gain meaningful, paid work experience. Helping more youth get work experience through the Canada summer jobs program is just one way this government is helping to grow and support the middle class and people working hard to join it.

Through budget 2019, the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development launched Canada's first-ever national poverty reduction strategy. The strategy sets new poverty reduction targets and establishes the federal government as a full partner in the fight against poverty. Our poverty reduction strategy also builds on the progress we have made together so far.

One of the very first things we did after being elected in 2015 was introduce the Canada child benefit, which has lifted more than half a million Canadians, including more than 300,000 children, out of poverty. The Canada child benefit has allocated nearly $7.4 million per month to 24,440 children living in Cloverdale—Langley City.

We also, as a government, immediately reversed the previous government's disastrous changes to the guaranteed income supplement and old age security. We restored the age of eligibility from 67 to 65 and made benefits for seniors more generous, which is helping lift another 100,000 seniors out of poverty every year, including many in my riding of Cloverdale—Langley City. Further, through new horizons for seniors, five organizations in my riding have received over $80,000 in funding, including, among others, the Lower Fraser Valley Aboriginal Society and the Royal Canadian Legion. This is what real change looks like.

We also know that no Canadian should have to choose between paying for prescriptions and putting food on the table. With budget 2019, our government is taking the next steps toward the implementation of a national pharmacare program by creating a Canadian drug agency to negotiate better drug prices on behalf of all Canadians, putting in place a national strategy for rare disease drugs to help Canadians access the life-saving drugs they need and creating a national formulary to provide consistency across the country. It is critically important that we get this right and do what is best and equitable for employers, employees and all Canadians.

To combat climate change, we are making zero emission vehicles more accessible for Canadians by providing a $5,000 federal incentive. In B.C., this can be combined with the provincial $5,000 credit and the $3,000 or $6,000 Scrap-It program incentive, depending on certain criteria.

We are also building infrastructure support for electric vehicles and zero emission vehicles and are encouraging new investments and innovation in zero emission vehicle manufacturing here in Canada. By investing in the future of transportation now, we are positioning Canada's automotive sector to grow, supporting clean jobs and growth and protecting the future for our children and grandchildren.

Our government knows that if we do not have a plan for the environment, we do not have a plan for the economy or for the future, and that is why we put a price on pollution in jurisdictions without one. We are making zero emission vehicles more affordable and are investing in clean technology and public transportation.

My beautiful province of British Columbia has had a price on pollution for over 10 years. Contrary to the narrative offered by the Conservatives, we have led Canada in economic growth and have reduced our emissions over the last decade.

Our government also knows the importance of investing in infrastructure. It not only creates good middle-class jobs for today but also strong local economies people can rely on for years to come. By helping to reduce traffic, keeping our families safe and addressing the challenges of climate change, our investments in infrastructure are setting our communities up for success.

Budget 2019 gives a one-time transfer of $2.2 billion through the federal gas tax fund to address short-term priorities in municipalities and first nation communities. In my riding of Cloverdale—Langley City, approximately $2 million has been secured for TransLink to cure congestion and improve transit options through the gas tax transfer.

Over the past four years, we have also secured federal funding of $4.46 million for the phase two expansion of the Surrey museum and $1.9 million to upgrade the Cloverdale Athletic Park multi-sport facility and field house. Better infrastructure, with improved public transit, more affordable housing and new community facilities, makes Cloverdale—Langley City a great place to start a business and raise a family.

We believe that every Canadian deserves a safe and affordable place to call home. Since taking office in 2015, we have made the most investments in housing in Canadian history. Our government launched Canada's first-ever national housing strategy, a once-in-a-generation $40-billion investment to fight homelessness and improve access to affordable housing across the country. By building, renewing and repairing housing in Canada, we are not just investing in our communities but are investing in people. We will keep working hard to make sure that Canadians have safe and affordable housing that meets their needs in communities where their families can thrive.

Budget 2019 also proposes to further increase compliance actions in the real estate sector by providing $50 million over five years and $10 million ongoing to create a real estate task force that would focus initially on the greater Toronto and greater Vancouver areas. This would benefit housing affordability in my area of Cloverdale—Langley City.

I would also like to speak about division 24 of part 4 of this act, which states:

Division 24 of Part 4 amends the Parks Canada Agency Act to provide that, starting on April 1, 2021, any balance of money appropriated to the Parks Canada Agency that is not spent by the Agency in the fiscal year in which it was appropriated lapses at the end of that fiscal year.

Having spent over 32 years working in Parks Canada prior to politics, this clause initially caused me some concern. We heard another member raise that concern in the House today. However, after speaking with the acting CEO of the Parks Canada Agency, I was reassured that this would help the agency deal with certain aspects of its operations, including asset recapitalization, and would have no impact on revenue and new park establishment, which are very important to the Parks Canada Agency. Our government knows and understands that we must always work hard to preserve the natural spaces we enjoy.

Finally, we know that building a better Canada must include advancing reconciliation with indigenous peoples. That is why budget 2019 includes important new measures that would help advance self-determination and improve the quality of life for first nations, Inuit, and Métis nations people.

Budget 2019 would help create a better future for indigenous people by improving access to clean drinking water and health services, funding distinctions-based post-secondary education, supporting indigenous languages and promoting entrepreneurship and business in indigenous communities. Our government will continue to advance the important work of reconciliation for a better future for indigenous people and for all Canadians.

I am proud to support this bill, knowing how my riding of Cloverdale—Langley City would benefit from the measures contained in Bill C-97.

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

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague knows, there is a crisis with our salmon in British Columbia. In Port Alberni, where I live, we had the fortune of having the member for Burnaby North—Seymour come to our riding when he was the parliamentary secretary for Fisheries and Oceans. On August 10, 2017, the Alberni Valley News quoted the member, who said:

For so long, communities have had a lot of good projects like the group here (West Coast Aquatic) that they’ve wanted to get done but we haven’t had the financial ability to move forward on it because the federal government has been somewhat absent.

At the time, he was touting the coastal restoration fund the government had committed $75 million for. West Coast Aquatic received nothing. Since then, we have been waiting for support for restoration for our salmon, especially when it comes to our sockeye, which is very important to the Somass River. The government has deferred, saying that the application process was oversubscribed, even though we have learned that the money has not been rolling out.

The government has now announced its new B.C. salmon restoration and innovation fund. What happens? West Coast Aquatic applies for funding and is denied. It still has not received any money. We are almost four years in. Salmon is the most important piece of the economy. I am hoping that this member and the government can answer, because people at home are waiting and wondering what is going on.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his advocacy on environmental issues in our beautiful province of British Columbia.

Our government has made significant investments in environmental protections. Although we want to see the money rolling out as fast as possible, sometimes new programs need to be designed. Those are being worked on. We will be seeing money to continue to support and restore the fishery on the west coast.

The west coast fishery is an important part of our identity as British Columbians. We need to continue working to make sure that it is there for the long term so that it can be used by indigenous people living in our province, by British Columbians and other Canadians and by those who travel internationally to enjoy our fisheries. We need to make sure that the investments are there to sustain that fishery for the long term.

That is what our government is working on, doing so in ways that previous governments have not.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard quite often from the Conservatives that balancing the budget is an important thing. We saw their attempts to do that back in 2015 by cutting drastically and limiting the opportunities for Canada to grow and expand.

At the same time, there is another way. It is called growing the economy by investing in the economy. I wonder if the hon. member for Cloverdale—Langley City could talk about what he has witnessed at home in terms of the investments the government is making to grow the economy, by, for instance, making transportation and trade better.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right. There are so many investments our government has made to help grow the economy. We are seeing it right in our home communities in Surrey and Langley, south of the Fraser River.

We recently made an announcement with the Province of B.C. We are investing a significant amount, hundreds of millions of dollars, in the trade corridor. On the Trans Canada Highway, there are many significant pinch points, and it is a main thoroughfare for getting goods to and from the Port of Vancouver. Billions of dollars in goods flow through it.

In working with the province, the federal government announced over $220 million to expand that particular trade corridor. That will help move our citizens as they live their lives, going to and from work and other activities in the Lower Mainland. It will also help move freight, which is an important part of jobs in the Lower Mainland.

We are doing other things as well. We are working on transit investments. Our government has committed over $650 million for the expansion of the SkyTrain service, which will create jobs. The train will go to my colleague's riding and will eventually continue, hopefully sooner rather than later, into my riding of Cloverdale, with the new terminus at Langley City.

Many investments are being made, and they are helping to grow the economy and create the jobs we need in our communities in Surrey and Langley City.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate today and it is important that we raise some issues with the statistics the government is using and the rhetoric coming out of it.

When I go back to my constituency outside of Edmonton, Alberta, I knock on doors and talk to people at their homes or their businesses. They tell me how they feel about the economy and how it has impacted their personal lives. It does not match up with rhetoric coming out of the government.

Recent reports say that many families in Canada are $200 away from insolvency, from paying their bills at the end of the month. That is the reality in my constituency. People in my constituency are making the choice this month between paying their car payment or heating their homes. Many people have already lost their homes. Because of the downturn in the energy sector and because the government has failed to get pipelines built to new markets so we can get an equitable and fair price for our excellent energy resources, families are suffering.

When I knock on doors, I see the many for sale signs. In one cul-de-sac, four out of eight houses are up for sale and they have been up for sale for months. People keep cutting the prices and they are losing money. They do not have jobs and no one is buying their houses. The reality the government talks about is not the reality we see in our communities, especially in Alberta.

The government talks about one million new jobs. I look at the immigration statistics. It is wonderful that our country is bringing in so many great permanent residents and new Canadians who can contribute to our economy. However, we are bringing in on average more than 250,000 people every year, people who we need for our economy. We have brought in 250,000 people every year for the last four years and that is one million people. Those people need jobs. This is not even counting the Canadians who are turning age 18 every year who also need jobs. When we talk about one million new jobs, over one million new Canadians need jobs. We need the government to be more robust in job creation. One million jobs is just the baseline level that we need to sustain our economy.

When we are talking about GDP per capita, we actually are seeing it go down because the Liberals are not creating enough jobs, and they are not high-paying jobs. More and more people work their whole lives, people like my grandmother who still works as a nurse at the age of 71 and she is proud and happy to work. However, the baby boomer generation is beginning to retire. We see a demographic shift in the country, which immigration is doing a lot to help, which shows that the number of working-age people to retired people is shrinking.

When we have that combined with a government that is running bigger and bigger deficits, with no plan to deal with the shrinking workforce, we are headed to an economic disaster. The government promised it would run sustainable deficits, that there would be deficits of no more than $10 billion a year and in four years, it would bring a balanced budget. We are in year four. The report today from Finance Canada states that the government spent $15 billion in the month of March alone, March madness. How is this sustainable government spending?

We are facing at least a $15 billion deficit this year, and that is far beyond what the government promised to do and certainly not anywhere close to getting a balanced budget. When we have numbers like these, how will we be prepared for the economy of the future? Our workers are increasingly getting older and we do not see the kind of productivity gains that we need in order to sustain ourselves going into the future.

We can look at places like Calgary. Now this is not the federal government's responsibility, but property taxes have gone up for business owners by 99% in the last four years. That is because the entire energy sector in Alberta has been decimated. Therefore, the government, at the city level, needs to increase taxes, and it is doing that. It is not cutting spending. More businesses are shutting down. We are seeing small retail businesses in Edmonton and in Calgary having to shut down because they cannot sustain their operations.

The federal government is not looking at the holistic picture of our economy. It is not looking at where our provincial or municipal governments are. It does not see that taxes are going up at provincial and municipal levels. Instead, it has decided to pile on its own layer of taxes.

We have new carbon taxes. We have new taxes on small business owners, on their passive income, on their savings. We have a significant increase in payroll taxes. We are seeing an increase in the amount of money that workers and employers need to pay into CPP. This is having a stunting effect on wage growth in the country.

We can look at our neighbour to the south. Usually when the economy of the United States is doing well, which it is now, it is over 3% annualized growth, we can expect the Canadian economy to pick up in a similar way. However, our economy is at an annualized growth of 0.4%. It is pathetic. It is barely above inflation.

Canadians are unable keep up. Their wage growth is not keeping up with the increased costs of living, and not just from inflation but from the Liberal government's increased taxes.

I was door knocking last Saturday in my constituency and I met a family. The first thing the parents asked me was why the Liberal government got rid of income splitting for families. They wanted to know why it got rid of the children's arts and fitness tax credits? That paid for their daughter to go to dance.

The government talks about the Canada child benefit. The Canada child benefit is an important program. It builds upon the universal child care benefit that our previous Conservative government created. However, when the Liberals talked about how they increased money to families, they did not talk about where the money came from. It came from gutting the children's fitness and arts tax credits. It came from getting rid of family income splitting. It came from lowering the amount of money families could save through the TFSA, from $10,000 to $5,000.

The Liberals are increasing taxes on families on the one hand by getting rid of tax credits that middle-class families and lower-income families were using and then giving them money through an increased government program. It is not increased benefits; it is increasing benefits and increasing taxes. It is just a shell game.

Now I want to talk about the so-called tax increase on the wealthiest 1%. The misconception and the falsehood behind that argument is that it is not a tax on the wealthiest 1%,; it is a tax on the 1% of highest earners. There is a huge difference when we are talking about the 1% of highest earners and the 1% of the wealthy. Today, as we have seen, KPMG just made a deal with CRA so the true wealthiest 1% of the country got a huge tax deal from the CRA.

When we see what the government's actions are on the wealthiest 1%, it is when the CRA makes deals with KPMG for the actual 1%. People who have intergenerational wealth built up through generations, really pay very little income tax, because they do not need to work.

What families are we talking about when it comes to the highest 1% of income earners? We are talking about recent medical graduates, dental graduates, lawyers, people who go hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to get the skills our society needs, skills that are highly valued in our society and that pay well. These people are often getting out of school with hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, especially if they went to the United States for school. They come back to Canada, work for a few years, get to that high income level and the government tells them they are wealthiest 1%, that they need to pay more income taxes.

Instead of targeting those people, we should be trying to bring them back to Canada and encouraging them to stay and practise here. We should be going after the actual wealthiest 1%, the people who hide their money offshore, the people get deals from the CRA. That is the wealthiest 1%; that is the wealthiest 1% the government will never touch because it is focused on playing class warfare politics with Canadians.

Then we are talking about—

[The Acting Speaker, Scott Simms]

I just wanted to let the member know his time was coming up. He has about 10 seconds left, if he would like to finish.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I just realized we have a new Speaker in the Chair today. I must say that the Chair has never looked so good. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

[The Acting Speaker, Scott Simms]

Thank you for the support. There has been no coup; I can assure members of that.

Questions and comments, the hon. member Burnaby North—Seymour.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my friend opposite's speech. He was talking a lot about deficits and debt, so I did some quick googling to make sure my numbers were right.

The previous Conservative government rang up over 150 billion dollars' worth of debt. The previous Conservative government before that rang up 330 billion dollars' worth of debt. If we add that up, it is $490 billion from just the last two Conservative prime ministers.

Canada has been around for 152 years, and the last two Conservative prime ministers account for 72% of the total debt. Why would we think they would do any differently in 2019?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have to look at the context of these things. In the 1980s, when the Brian Mulroney government was in power, that government was handed a stagnant economy, with inflation and interest rates in the double digits. It was left a huge mess by the previous prime minister. Therefore, the Brian Mulroney government took tangible actions to get our fiscal house in order. Who benefited from that? Well, it was the Chrétien government that benefited from it. We did the hard work and then they just cut and cut and gave it to the provinces to deal with, and they took no responsibility. That is not a responsible way of doing things.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to hear the hon. member bring up the issue of income splitting, because that is something the previous Conservative government put forward prior to the last election. It is interesting to note that an analysis done on income splitting of the type the Conservatives were advocating said that for the primary beneficiaries, 98% of the benefits would go to families with a single wage earner earning over $150,000 a year. Guess where most of those folks are? They are in Alberta. It seems there has been quite an Alberta-centric vision in the Conservative Party for quite some time. Members would remember the “energy superpower”. Heck, remember last week when the Leader of the Opposition was again promoting Alberta oil from coast to coast to coast.

However, the key question I have for the hon. member across the way is this. Like the other Conservative measures, are we going to go back to the future? Is his party going to put forward the notion of income splitting for all families in Canada again?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will never apologize for standing up for my constituents, the people of Alberta, not now and not ever.

It is ironic that the member brought up the fact that 98% of the families that would benefit were making $150,000 or more, when it was the current government's own so-called middle class tax cut that benefited people making $90,000 and over. Those were the people who benefited the most.

Our previous government took into account that an unlimited tax splitting tax scheme would have a disproportionate effect on wealthier people compared with less wealthy people. Therefore, we put in a maximum of $5,000 that families could benefit from income splitting.

If the member is against income splitting, I hope the Liberals would answer if they are going to take away income splitting for pensioners and seniors.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Youth Economic Opportunity)]

Mr. Speaker, I am curious if my hon. colleague truly understands how the unemployment rate system works. He talked about immigration as if only new Canadians were getting jobs. Can he understand the fact that the unemployment rate has increased and that he does not fully understand how this system works, which is consistent with the Conservatives' lack of understanding of how the economy works? When he makes references to statistics in the House, he simply has zero comprehension of them.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I do not appreciate the member gaslighting people in the chamber in regard to what I had previously stated.

I never said it was only immigrants who are getting jobs. I strongly support immigration, but I am saying that if we bring in one million people, if they are only providing one million new jobs, then that is only enough to provide for those people. We have many people coming of age in this country who also need jobs and need to be covered as well.

I did not see the member when I was speaking, and so I am not sure if she understood exactly what I was saying. Clearly, that is the case.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I would remind the hon. member that members are not permitted to reference either the absence or presence of members in the House.

Notice of time allocation motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that agreements could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the respective stages of the said bill.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see a steady hand back in the chair. I was concerned about the previous speaker who was sitting there, but order has been restored in the House. That is is the most controversial thing I may say in my speech, but I call it as I see it.

When I decided to run for politics, I had been working with a local organization for six years and was chair of that organization. It is called Quest Community Health Centre in St. Catharines and it provides primary health care to those who would not otherwise have access to it. It may seem that in a universal system of health care, everyone should be able to access primary care. We all have a health card in our pocket and we can get that level of treatment, but it was a surprise to me that it did not happen. Many people fell through the cracks and their primary source of treatment was the hospital, which is more expensive, less effective and leads to sicker people.

It gave me an opportunity over those six years to meet the clients at Quest Community Health Centre, those who had economic challenges, those who were homeless and living on the street, and those who had addictions, mental health or concurrent disorders. We talked a lot about the social determinants of health, meaning all of the factors in our lives that have an impact on our health. It is not just a matter of going to the hospital or seeing a doctor, because there are a lot of economic and socioeconomic factors that play into health.

One of the factors at the centre of all of our health is housing. Canadians across the country say that we need to do better on health, but we have to look at the socioeconomic factors around that. As I said, housing is one of those significant factors in that where we live within our community can almost determine what our life expectancy is. Those who are living in the urban centre of St. Catharines have a lower life expectancy than those living a mere 10 minutes away, where my family lives. That is shocking.

When we take the idea of housing as being at the centre of health care, we can apply it to so much more. We should be looking at housing as a centre of the debate on mental health, as a centre of the debates on poverty and the opioid crisis and the criminal justice system. There are no simple answers to any of these problems we are facing, but one of the easiest things we can do is to provide housing. This is what I brought forward.

In Niagara and this is true across southern Ontario, the wait lists for housing are staggering. It can take more than 10 years to find a single apartment through the Niagara region housing system. We should be shocked by this. We can say there is no cost to the taxpayer, but the costs of homelessness are huge. For all of the other issues I talked about, if we do not provide housing, the downstream costs are enormous.

It was exciting for me to go with that point through the election campaign, and I know my Conservative friends are very excited to hear about it, especially the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

It is disappointing that the member from Aurora is laughing at an issue of homelessness when this is a serious discussion.

We went door to door and said that housing is at crisis levels in our community.

It did not get there overnight. It was governments of all political stripes, federal, provincial, municipal, that abandoned their responsibilities under housing. They did not do enough, and that has led us to the housing crisis we now face. People are waiting a decade to find affordable housing. The vacancy rate in St. Catharines has fallen below 2%, which makes it a crisis level.

I was excited last week to go to a new development at 527 Carlton Street in St. Catharines. It is the first affordable housing development built in St. Catharines by Niagara Regional Housing since the 1970s. It is almost criminal that we have ignored a crisis like this for so long. Through the national housing strategy, the federal government contributed $7 million to this project.

It was wonderful to meet with the residents, many of whom have been waiting a long time. Many of them had been living in substandard housing. It was wonderful to talk to them and see smiles on their faces. It is wonderful to know that government can help.

We hear a lot about cuts. We have to cut. Government is spending too much. We have to cut, cut, cut. This is what government spending looks like: being able to look at constituents who are smiling because they now have a place to call home. This is fundamental.

The amendments we made at committee stage on the national housing strategy recognize the importance of housing to the well-being of all people in Canada. They reflect the key principles of a human rights approach to housing that requires a national housing strategy to focus on improving housing outcomes for those in greatest need.

The national housing strategy act would establish a national housing council, with diverse representation, including people with lived experience of housing need or homelessness, to provide advice to the minister responsible for housing.

The amendments we are bringing at report stage on the national housing strategy would further entrench the commitment already made on the accountability of the proposed federal housing advocate, ensure greater accountability, enhance the advocate's role in researching systemic housing challenges, and empower the national housing council and give it more freedom to report to the housing advocate and to report findings to the minister.

If we are going to address this housing crisis, we need all levels of government to come together. I am proud to work with my mayor, Mayor Walter Sendzik, and our city council. They are passionate about the housing strategy. I hope our provincial government steps up, but I am worried that it will not.

As I only have a couple of minutes left, I would like to touch on the issue of infrastructure, which is important to all of our communities. Our communities are all facing infrastructure deficits from money that was not spent. At the end of the day, if there are infrastructure deficits and there is no help from the federal government, it ultimately means higher property taxes and higher water bills.

My worry at home is a project that happens every few years. I am talking about the Canada Summer Games. Niagara won the bid. The federal government stands ready to commit and to build, but the provincial government is absent. It refuses to come forward for Niagara to develop sports infrastructure.

When it came to Red Deer, Alberta, which hosted the last games, it got $80 million when two Conservative governments worked together. I still hold out hope that the Ford government is listening and cares about Niagara and wants to see this project move forward.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for St. Catharines will have five minutes for questions and comments when the House next gets back to debate on the question.

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from May 31 consideration of Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Report Stage

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been here for over 23 years, and I have always spoken to budget bills, whether the Conservatives were in opposition or on the government side. That is because a budget is what defines our economy; a budget is what defines where Canada's economy will move.

My colleagues on this side have highlighted, in very great detail, what is wrong with this budget bill put forward by the Liberal government. Let me start by saying certain things. I have been sitting here and listening to the Liberals when they get up. They like to attack us, calling out Mr. Harper's name all the time. The Liberal members have used Mr. Harper's name more than anybody I have ever heard. Somehow it is in their psyche that the former prime minister should be used to highlight their deficiencies.

Let me just show, using facts, why they are wrong. The international Institute for Management Development puts together a yearly world competitiveness ranking. Within one year, Canada has fallen three spots on the world competitiveness ranking, from 10th in 2018 to 13th this year. We are the lowest of the G7 countries. In 2018-19, the Liberals were in power. We fell from 10th to 13th.

Let me say this. In the same report, previously, from 2007 to 2015, Canada rose from 10th place to fifth place. That was under the Conservative government of former prime minister Harper. Let me repeat that for the Liberals who speak from their points. Under their regime we dropped in the ranking, going from 10th to 13th, the lowest of the G7 countries. During the period when we were in power under former prime minister Harper, which was 2007 to 2015, we rose from 10th place to fifth place. This is something they should take into account every time they talk about it.

When it comes to economic performance, government officials, business efficiency or infrastructure, the institute says we are not in the top five countries in this index. This is terrible management. Business investment in Canada under the Liberal government has fallen by an annualized rate of 10.9%. This is the second time it has fallen by over 10%. What a shame. This is the management record of the Liberal government.

The Liberal government seems totally oblivious to economic conditions. I come from Alberta. We have seen the devastating impact the government has had on my province. In my city of Calgary, the downtown is completely empty. Right now, businesses in the suburban area are suffering from tax hikes, because the downtown, which used to be the core economic sector in Calgary, has half its buildings empty. That is since the Liberals came into power. They had the opportunity to fix that.

The Liberals bought the Trans Mountain pipeline, but even if they started construction on it, what about Bill C-69, and what about Bill C-48, the tanker bill? Those bills are a direct attack on Alberta.

Albertans are now reeling from the disastrous management of the government. When the father of our current Prime Minister was there, that was the first time Alberta was suffering. I was there at that time. The government tried to seize the oil royalties. The finance minister was Marc Lalonde. It was a disastrous result. Since then, the Liberals have never recovered in Alberta. During the election of 2015, the current Prime Minister said that he would do business differently than his father in Alberta. Lo and behold, those sunny days are gone. This is something that, again, he has not fulfilled.

I am talking about Alberta and the energy sector. The energy sector benefits the whole country. It is not only Alberta's sector. It is British Columbia's, Quebec's, Ontario's, the Maritimes', everyone. It is one of our key sectors.

What is very important is that our companies have spent billions of dollars on clean technology. I will give one example. I was on the foreign affairs committee in the opposition. At that time, in the oil fields of Sudan, Talisman, a Canadian company, had a percentage of the operation in Sudan. All these NGOs that are based in western Canada found that it was easy to target a Canadian company, so they went after the Canadian company, accusing it of all kinds of crimes committed against the environment. The ultimate result was that Talisman sold its shares to China and to India. The next day, all the protests were over.

Has oil stopped? No, it has not. Whom will they target? They will target Canadians. Why will they target them? It is an easy way to do it for these environmentalists. All of a sudden, they disappeared. That shows that the targets of these environmentalists are where they are doing it right now.

I want to go on to another issue, which is the media outlets these guys are giving money to. I can tell members why it is going to be a problem. What about the ethnic media? There are a huge number of ethnic media in the country. Are the Liberals going to give money to the ethnic media, or are they only going to give money to the old Canadian media that are sitting here on the national scene? Are they the only ones who are going to benefit? This is a slippery slope. I will accuse them of discrimination if they do not give money to the ethnic media.

On the panel, there sits a guy who is absolutely anti-Conservative. He said the day before yesterday that he has a right to speak freely. Absolutely. We in the Conservative caucus warn their labour union that he is absolutely right that he can speak, but he is not going to sit on an independent panel and decide which media are going to get money. That goes against democracy. That goes against the principles of democracy. It puts all journalists under a cloud. These journalists had better wake up, because they are going to be under a cloud. Can we trust them when they are getting money from the government? Any time anyone else gets money, they oppose that. How can I believe that what these journalists are writing is unbiased? All indications are that the government is using the money it has to buy votes and to buy publicity. It is a slippery road. It is best not to get involved. The whole country has media, so it is easier for the Liberals not to do that.

In my conclusion, let me say clearly that this is an absolute economic disaster by the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is so wrong in his concluding remarks. I would challenge him by saying that over one million jobs have been created by this government working with every region of our country. We can talk about tax breaks for the middle class. We can talk about investing in infrastructure.

This bill today is about the implementation of a series of budgets that have had a profoundly positive impact on Canada's middle class and those who aspire to be part of it. They deal with issues such as poverty among our children and our seniors. This government has lifted hundreds of thousands of them out of poverty. Compared to Harper in his 10 years, it has been absolute night and day.

Does the member not believe that a million jobs and the series of things I just listed are good and that Canadians will make a positive judgment come October 19, based on what I just indicated, compared to what the member opposite has said?

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

Mr. Speaker, those are typical Liberal talking points, nothing more than that. They are the usual huff and bluff sunny ways we are talking about.

He should come down to the ground. He should come down to Alberta and Saskatchewan and talk to the people there who are suffering from job losses. They cannot put food on the table. I do not know which figures the member is talking about. Let us go and talk to them.

The member should walk on the ground and listen to them. He is all about reading Liberal talking points.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague whether he believes the budget implementation bill should have included a clause to eliminate stock options for CEOs, who tend to be quite well-off already. Rich CEOs are still being protected, unlike less wealthy Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, the difference between the Conservatives and the NDP, and of course, the NDP is similar to the current Liberal government, is that we allow businesses to make their own decisions. We allow the business community to run businesses out there. Governments do not like interfering in business affairs. We will only interfere if it is in the interest of the public.

In general, businesses in this country, under our government, when we were in power, had a free hand to make proper business decisions, which is why I read the report, and I am going to read it again. Under the Liberal regime, we fell in the world competitive ranking from 10 to 13. During our regime, Canada rose from a ranking of 10 to five, something the Liberals should wake up and smell.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the pleasure of hearing many speeches from my colleague. I was there for his Petro-Canada speech, one of the truly fine moments in Parliament, as well as what I call his wake up and smell the thing speech, which, again, was wonderful.

Our economy is based on exports. The member knows the problem we have been having with China, India and so many countries where we have really lost our position internationally. I would ask my friend, who for so long served as a parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, if he would talk about the importance of Canada in the world and the importance to our economy. Why was that not addressed in the budget?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is simple and straightforward. The government's priority is not the economy. The Liberals have other priorities and have put money in other areas. The economic advantage Canada had and will continue having is not on their agenda.

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to address the Chair and our fellow citizens on the subject of the latest budget.

Over the past four years, our government has repeatedly proven that investing in the middle class pays dividends for society as a whole. Once again this year, Canadians can be sure that the government's priorities mirror their own.

Over the past four years, the cause dearest to my heart has been seniors. Meeting the men and women who live in phases I and III of the Domaine des Forges and Manoir Thérèse Casgrain has been such a pleasure and has strengthened my dedication to our fellow Canadians in their golden years. That is why it is an honour to belong to a party that, since 2016, has repeatedly demonstrated its dedication to the well-being of our seniors through measures such as increasing the guaranteed income supplement for seniors living alone and restoring the age of eligibility for old age security to 65.

The concerns of our seniors go beyond that. Many of our young retirees still have a lot to contribute to our society, including by extending their career. We have to reward the efforts of those who have already given so much to our country. That is why I commend the decision to increase the GIS exemption. To all those who continue working after they retire, our government is showing that it stands by them and will protect their place in the working world.

In an ever-changing world where automation and digitization threaten so many jobs, we must be proactive to help those who still have a long career ahead of them. Professional training is a fundamental challenge of the upcoming decade. Whether we are talking about skills development or career change, continuing education will help keep the Canadian workforce at the top. The Canada training benefit is a key step toward that goal. It provides money to workers to pay for training costs.

I know how important our skilled workers are. A few weeks ago, I toured the Mecaer Aviation Group plant located in the riding of Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. It made me realize that the quality of a machine counts for nothing without a skilled worker to operate it. These workers are the backbone of our economy and always will be. Canadians are our government's top priority, no matter what sector they work in, and that will never change.

Besides our economy, health is a central theme in this budget. In the short term, we need to focus on the many Canadians who are still being forced to choose between food and medicine. There is no denying that the path to national pharmacare will be rocky, and we cannot allow ourselves to hasten a process that will change people's lives. That is why I commend the creation of the Canadian drug agency, which represents a decisive step towards fair and equitable access to health for all.

Canadians' health is an urgent issue in the short term, but we also know that the effects of climate change are imminent. Doing nothing now costs more than taking action. The key to a successful ecological transition is to change our consumption habits while maintaining our economic gains. The only way we can afford to make a successful ecological transition is by staying on the path to prosperity that our government put this country on.

Transportation is a key issue because it is both an environmental challenge and a pillar of our economy. Millions of Canadians travel by car every day. With this budget, our government will contribute up to $5,000 to the purchase of zero-emission vehicles and expand the network of charging and refuelling stations for them.

I want to tell all Canadians that I have full confidence that our government will keep Canada on the path to prosperity. Based on the fact that 900,000 jobs have been created and 825,000 people lifted out of poverty, I am convinced that this budget will only improve their daily lives.

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

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

He spoke about environmental protection and zero-emission vehicles, the creation of a drug agency and how to support and help the average family.

Can he explain the effect all these elements have had on Canadians in general?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Before I give the floor to the hon. member from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, I would like to remind members that they must be in their own seats to ask a question or to speak. I realize that the Chair, too, can make mistakes.

The hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin.

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our government is ensuring that Canadians are ready to play a key role in tomorrow's clean economy, notably by helping them purchase zero-emission vehicles. Budget 2019 provides a financial incentive worth up to $5,000 for the purchase of a zero-emission vehicle. We are reducing greenhouse gas emissions while optimizing our talent and our technology to accelerate the commercialization and adoption of zero-emission vehicles.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for my colleague. This question gets repeated with every budget and every budget implementation bill.

In 2015, his party promised to put an end to omnibus budgets. Year after year, actually, twice a year with budget implementation bills, it has become clear that the Liberals have adopted the Conservative practice of including just about anything in omnibus budgets.

In this particular case, we have changes to the status of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, measures pertaining to the Hazardous Products Act and amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. That all should have been examined separately, but the Liberals included it in the same bill.

I am trying to understand how my colleague can say that his party fulfilled that formal commitment, made in 2015, to not use omnibus budgets, when they do introduce bills that include items that have nothing to do with the budget.

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have time today to explain our position, but I can say that we have created one million jobs in Canada since 2015. We know that some people do not have access to the training they need to benefit from these new good-paying jobs.

Our government is therefore launching the Canada training benefit to help workers find the time and money they need to upgrade their skills. Our government believes that Canadians should be able to gain new skills and take their future in their own hands at any stage of their professional lives.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have just 10 minutes to talk about Bill C-97, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures. I would have liked to have my colleague answer my question, since he had the time and it was not too complicated.

When the Liberals were in opposition and during the 2015 election campaign, they promised to stop this trend of including measures that have absolutely nothing to do with the budget in the budget and budget implementation bills. This is an undemocratic measure and practice. It forces us to vote on the budget, which is a confidence vote, and on measures that should be considered separately from the budget.

The Liberals were critical of this practice for four years, but they continue to utilize this undemocratic process.

I would like to talk about Bill C-97 and the budget in general, not necessarily about what is in the budget or the bill, but about what is not there. Over the past four years I have raised some very important issues highlighting how the Liberals did not keep their promises.

The first thing that I wanted from Bill C-97 was to see that the Minister of Finance was keeping his promise to address the issue of tax transfers for businesses and farms. The tax transfer issue is important because, at present, an individual who owns a small business or family farm and wants to transfer it to his children or a family member must pay more tax than if he transferred or sold it to a stranger or someone who is not a family member. There is a very simple reason for this. Selling to a stranger triggers a capital gain with a set of exemptions. However, the profits from the sale to children are treated as dividends and fully taxed.

In 2016, I introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-274, to address this issue. The bill sought to ensure that these two types of transactions received equal treatment and that individuals would not be at a disadvantage when selling their assets to their children.

I spent a year working on Bill C-274. I visited many areas of Canada, particularly the maritime provinces, which are represented by 32 Liberal members. I did not go to speak with MPs, but rather to speak with representatives of chambers of commerce and organizations that advocate for fishers and farmers. Everyone agrees that this legislation is necessary. I would even say that the tax treatment involved when businesses and family farms are sold or transferred is one of the top concerns of small business owners.

I worked on this for a year. At the end of that year, when it was time to begin debating the bill, I had the support of about 25 Liberal members. I had the support of the Conservatives, the Bloc Québécois and the independent members of the House. The only thing missing was the support I needed from the Liberals. I was able to get the support of at least 25 members after making citizens aware, citizens who then spoke to their MPs about it.

The bill made it through its first hour of debate, but then, before the start of the second hour, the Minister of Finance made a surprising announcement. He said that the bill was going to cost the government between $800 million and $1.2 billion in lost revenue. It was surprising because the tax specialists we hired to study the impacts of the bill estimated the tax loss at between $90 million and $100 million, which is hardly peanuts, but still an acceptable cost to insure that we level the playing field, so to say.

Clearly, these are two different price ranges. The Minister of Finance took his department's figures and successfully convinced a string of Liberal MPs that, though he understands how important this bill is for SMEs and family farms, they had to vote against it because losing $1 billion in tax revenue would be irresponsible. He promised that, by the end of this Parliament, there would be a tax measure in the budget that would truly meet those needs. He promised that.

In the meantime, there have been three budgets and five budget implementation bills. There is still nothing to deal with this inequity, this injustice that exists for owners of small business, family farms, and fish companies who want to transfer their business to their children.

I am appealing to the Liberal members who represent rural and farming regions and who have a lot of SMEs in their riding to think about the consequences of voting against Bill C-274. Once again, there is no measure in this budget bill to address the tax inequity and unfairness. That is the first thing I wanted to note. The Minister of Finance broke the promise he made to his own caucus, to correct the situation in a later budget. The election is fast approaching and this still has not been addressed. My colleagues can be sure that this issue will be raised in a number of ridings come election time. Liberal candidates will have to defend the finance minister's position, as well as his failure.

Another issue that is very important to MPs from rural areas is cell coverage. We hear a lot about investment in high-speed Internet, and clearly, there has been some. Not everyone has access, but there has been some investment. However, none of the new Liberal or Conservative programs have included measures for cell coverage, even though it is so important. In my riding, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, 13 of the 39 municipalities I represent have little or no cell coverage. Over 1,000 people live in the municipality of Squatec, and they have no cell coverage unless they find exactly the right spot on top of a little hill or on the second floor of the high school.

We have raised this issue repeatedly in the House. The member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue has brought it to the government's attention many times during question period. The government's answers always focus on investment in high-speed Internet. Those are two different things. Investing in high-speed Internet does not mean investing in cell coverage. Essentially, telecom companies are not interested in investing in rural regions without adequate population density. Individual companies will not risk making that investment because it could end up benefiting all the other companies. The government needs to intervene because the market has failed, but the Liberal government has done nothing for four years now.

Several members are concerned about this issue. I am thinking of the member for Laurentides—Labelle and the member for Pontiac, who represent large rural areas and who tentatively bring up this issue from time to time. We voted on a motion moved by the member for Pontiac that emphasized the urgent need for action. That is the problem right there. The government talks about the urgent need to act, but it never does, even though it is in a position to do so. If the government does not want to make the necessary investments so that rural regions and rural residents are no longer treated as second class, then concrete action needs to be taken.

If the government does not want to make real investments, it needs to think of another solution to take the responsibility for making investments away from the companies and give it to an independent Canadian agency, for example. That agency would be funded by the companies as a condition of licence, and it could make investment decisions and acquire the necessary spectrum to do so. That would ensure coverage in all of the regions that would not otherwise have it, and all of the companies that made investments could also benefit from the new coverage. That is one solution that the government could implement. Another solution would be for the government to invest in cell coverage as it did for high-speed Internet.

There are solutions. All it takes is a little goodwill. However, since we began raising this issue, I have not seen any goodwill from the Liberals in this regard.

I will not have much time to talk about the third item, but I brought it up in my question to my colleague earlier. It is the fact that the Liberals did not keep their promise to table budget bills that actually focus on budget-related issues. Instead they chose to play petty politics and try to speed through their legislative agenda by throwing in tons of measures that have nothing to do with the budget. This Liberal tactic is as politically cynical now as it was when it was first used by the Conservatives from 2011 to 2015.

For all of these reasons, I find myself unable to vote for this bill. I am happy to have had a chance to explain why.

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

Mr. Speaker, obviously, I respect the work of the member, but we have some pretty significant disagreements about the approach in terms of the budget. Therefore, I would ask the member for his perspective on the issue of budget balance, because we hear from the government, essentially, an expectation that the budget would never need to be balanced, it seems.

With the NDP in the last election, we had more discussion of balanced budgets, but we do not hear as much about that now. I am curious about the member's view on whether it is important to balance the budget, what the timeline would be and how that should inform the kinds of spending commitments that are made.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

There are indeed some considerable differences between our respective visions. However, I think his question was interesting, and I will answer it as the economist I am.

When a business wants to borrow money, it assesses its decision to borrow by comparing the rate of return on the planned investment with the amount of interest it will have to pay. If the rate of return is better, it borrows and invests the money. It goes into debt in order to invest and grow, because its investments will be positive.

The same principle applies to a government. If the government can increase productivity and economic growth at a greater rate than the interest it has to pay on its loans, that is not a problem. The problem with the Liberals is that most of the deficit they have run up was supposed to be invested in infrastructure, yet many reports, including those from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, say that there has been far less investment in infrastructure than anticipated and that the returns have not really materialized. A lot of money is being invested, but are we seeing a return, and is it worthwhile?

Those are some of the questions the Liberals will have to answer.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP say they are not too sure whether or not the investments that have accrued the deficit were worth it.

The member in essence was referencing infrastructure and there is no doubt that plays a role in it but so does the Canada child benefit program, which has lifted hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, the increase to the guaranteed income supplement and the tax break to Canada's middle class. Combined, this has all contributed towards a much healthier economy that has ultimately generated over one million jobs since we have been in government and working with Canadians in all regions.

As we get closer to an election, I am wondering if the member could be clear on whether or not we can anticipate the NDP will take the same approach they took in 2015, when they said they would balance the budget.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I see that the member is taking the same approach he took in 2015, that is, giving the government full credit for creating jobs, just as the Conservatives did in 2011 and in 2015.

The government can take action to facilitate certain things, but all economists agree that taking full credit for job creation is utterly absurd.

The member mentioned infrastructure. I hope he is reading the Parliamentary Budget Officer's reports, because, in terms of infrastructure, the money is quite simply not there. One of the Liberals' most important promises was to create an infrastructure bank. The infrastructure bank was supposed to support the creation of infrastructure.

For us, it was clear that the bank would be a tool to help privatize infrastructure revenue. In fact, the bank, which was established four years ago and is already weighed down by cumbersome bureaucracy, has managed to make just a single investment. It granted Montreal a loan for its light rail project. That has been its only investment. Actually, it is not even an investment; it is a loan that will be paid back.

I am listening to the Liberals talk about their plans for the upcoming election campaign. They say they are going to do this and that thanks to the infrastructure bank. It makes no sense. It is a huge empty shell. The only reason the infrastructure bank would ever come to fruition would be to satisfy shareholders and their investment funds. We will have to start charging tolls or user fees. Canadians will end up having to pay for their own infrastructure, which they already invested in.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when our government was elected in 2015, we promised Canadians that we would fight for the middle class. We have kept that promise. We have created over one million jobs since being elected and an overwhelming majority of those jobs are well-paying, full-time jobs.

Recently, Canada saw its lowest unemployment rate in over 40 years. Recent numbers also show that Canada saw a decrease in the number of people living in poverty, from 10.6% to 9.5%, between 2016 and 2017. That means over 900,000 people have been lifted out of poverty, including 300,000 children, over 150,000 seniors and many adults.

Since we were elected, we have seen a rise in the median after-tax income of Canadians, to $81,500. In Surrey Centre, our infrastructure investments are paying off, from the $125-million Simon Fraser sustainable energy and environmental engineering building, completed now with $45 million from the Government of Canada, to the $61-million brand new RCMP forensic lab that is about to open, to the over $900 million given for public transit funding to help renovate Surrey Centre SkyTrain stations, buy new energy-efficient buses and replace the 1976 expo-era SkyTrain cars with new comfortable and quiet cabins. Our plan is working.

The multiplier factor is evident everywhere. Dozens of new IT and health care innovators have opened up. Kwantlen Polytechnic University has built a new urban campus. The Fraser port is growing on a rapid scale and the city is firing on all cylinders. Our transit ridership is the highest in the world, and last year, ridership went up by over 15%.

I was 15 years old when I designed my first home, and by the time I was 16, I was designing homes as a business and for others. Beginning in 1991, I designed over 700 homes in a seven-year period, from the age of 16 to 23. Those were the years of opportunities that helped me launch my career and secure my livelihood. As I see the willingness of young people to work equally hard today, it upsets me to know that they are undoubtedly faced with more barriers to initiate and secure their housing dreams.

The average price for a detached home in greater Vancouver exceeds $1 million, while the average price of an apartment or condo is $660,000. These prices often take the prospect of buying a home off the table. In turn, many young people and families are compelled to rent instead of buy. For those who do rent, the prices have become incredibly high as well. Everyone needs a safe and affordable place to call home, but today, too many Canadians are being priced out of the housing market.

As the member for Surrey Centre, I am all too familiar with constituency concerns about housing insecurity, as well as the impact this insecurity has on the overall quality of life of my constituents. Whether they are young persons hoping to start their careers or a couple looking to start a family, buying a first home remains a challenge, with many young people believing that home ownership is increasingly becoming an unattainable goal in their lifetimes.

Recently, I held a round table in my riding of Surrey Centre with the Minister of Finance's former chief of staff and director of policy. Housing affordability, the stress test and mortgages were the three main points brought up by the Homebuilders Association Vancouver, mortgage associations, the construction industry, home builders, real estate trade organizations and other trade organizations throughout the Lower Mainland. The round table sparked positive conversations on how to mitigate pressure and make home ownership affordable and easier.

By listening to the needs of Canadians and encouraging dialogue, I am proud to say this government has continued its commitment to improving housing affordability in this country, and this is exemplified in budget 2019. The inclusion of the first-time homebuyer incentive will drastically change the housing prospects for current and prospective Surrey Centre residents.

The first-time homebuyer incentive targets young families who wish to enter the market and buy their first homes. This will help people like Karina, from my office, or Julian, who will be able to buy their first homes when this program is implemented. Those with a household income of less than $120,000 will be eligible to have a 10% reduction in their down payment with the help of CMHC.

In addition, the homebuyers plan helps with the down payment and costs associated with the purchase of a first home. Paying a lower down payment, new homebuyers will pay reduced monthly mortgage payments. The new homeowners, in turn, will require smaller loans and new homeowners will not be beholden to the CMHC for any kind of repayment until the place is sold.

This incentive is inclusive in its objective of making a new home affordable for all Canadians. This includes new Canadians, single parents and youth who could greatly benefit from this break and form of security.

Division 19 of the national housing strategy recognizes the importance of housing to the well-being of all persons in Canada, reflects the key principles of a human rights-based approach to housing and focuses on improving housing outcomes for those in greatest need.

In 2017, the government launched the rental construction financing initiative, which is a four-year program that provides low-cost loans for the construction of new rental housing for modest and middle-income Canadians. To provide more affordable rental options for middle-class Canadians, budget 2019 proposes an additional $10 billion over nine years in financing through the rental construction financing initiative, extending the program until 2027-28. With this increase, the program will support 42,500 new housing units across Canada, particularly in areas of low rental supply.

The government is also committed to working in partnership with the province and the municipality to ensure a tri-levelled affordable housing strategy for Surrey residents. In conjunction with British Columbia's affordable B.C. plan and Surrey's affordable housing strategy, the government's new homeowner incentive is a proactive measure to ensure that a future in Surrey is possible for young people and families.

In addition to the measures announced on March 15, 2019, the ministers of finance for Canada and British Columbia announced their intention to create an expert panel on housing supply. The panel will examine factors that currently limit housing supply and recommend the actions governments can take to ensure that together we are building better, more affordable and more inclusive communities.

These new incentives add to an already existing, ambitious national housing strategy that was released in 2017. Our government committed over $40 billion over the following decade to help Canadians from coast to coast to coast with housing affordability. This strategy considers the distinct housing needs of Canadians such as seniors, women and children fleeing domestic violence, indigenous people, persons with disabilities, those dealing with mental health and addiction issues, veterans and young adults.

Our goal is to cut chronic homelessness in half, remove 530,000 families from housing need and invest in the construction of up to 100,000 new homes. However, our government knows that these changes cannot, unfortunately, take place overnight. This is why our government has introduced new measures in budget 2019 to help relieve the pressures on Canadians.

Throughout this government's time in office, we have taken significant steps forward in terms of backing the middle class, and budget 2019 is another step in the right direction. From achieving the lowest unemployment rate in years to instituting the first-time homebuyer incentive, we have shown that we want to invest in Canadians and their families. Additional projects that were established to actively help Canadians hoping to get into the housing market are the rental construction financing initiative and the national housing strategy.

We will continue working hard to ensure that for middle-class Canadians home ownership is not a pipe dream, but rather, an achievable goal.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I was quite impressed by the fact that my hon. colleague started his speech talking about his own life as an entrepreneur. I do not want to fight about age, but at a young age he had a great talent for creating wealth and I congratulate him.

My question is about the current situation, rather than about when he was young. Four years ago, he was elected on a promise that in 2019 the deficit would be zero. What is the deficit today?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for making nice comments about my earlier career.

When we were elected, we promised Canadians that we would invest in jobs, infrastructure and the middle class. We have delivered on those promises. We have created more jobs than ever in the history of this country. We have brought the unemployment rate down to the lowest ever recorded in this country. We are the best economy in the G7 when it comes to growth and are the envy of the world currently.

My constituents are extremely happy, as I see that investment and growth right in Surrey Centre with new companies and new businesses opening up. The biggest complaint I ever receive is about not being able to find enough employees. I have yet to receive a complaint about someone not being able to find a job. That is the best indicator of a great economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that a budget is always about making choices.

The government is currently making choices by leaving stock option deductions for CEOs in place and subsidizing big oil companies with its pipeline purchase. We are losing billions because of this, while there is a housing crisis going on across the country. The hon. member talked about the crisis in his riding. There is a crisis in my riding too, but it is a hundred times worse in the north, especially in indigenous communities.

The government is putting all sorts of things in the budget, so why did it not take advantage of this latest budget to introduce a targeted housing strategy for indigenous people that includes much-needed funding?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am definitely concerned about housing, especially with respect to indigenous communities and bands. The current housing strategy will benefit thousands of urban aboriginals living in cities. In fact, Surrey is home to one of the largest urban indigenous populations. These measures will help them even more. There is still work to be done. A lot of work is being done on water treatment facilities. No band, no reserve and no place in Canada should have a boil water advisory.

When it comes to indigenous housing, the member is right. The government should and will commit to creating more housing in those communities, so everyone benefits from this great economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, from Winnipeg Centre all the way to Surrey Centre, I want the member to know that division 7 of part 4 would amend the Old Age Security Act to provide, in July 2020, a new income exemption for the purpose of calculating the guaranteed income supplement. This new exemption excludes the first $5,000 of a person's employment and self-employment income, as well as 50% of the person's employment and self-employment income greater than the $5,000, but not exceeding $15,000. This will be great for seniors. It will allow them to continue working, while ensuring they receive those benefits.

We are providing our hard-working seniors with the things they need to be successful.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I heard from my constituents.

In the summer, prior to the budget, some seniors in my riding came to my “chai with Sarai” events and some of my other programs. They said that they needed a little space, a bit of room. They wanted to work hard and stay active. The cap was set decades ago at $3,500 and they asked for it to be increased to $5,000, de-escalating up to $15,000.

Like the member for Winnipeg Centre, I advocated for that with the Minister of Finance. I was happy to tell seniors that it was included in this budget, and they were ecstatic.

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

Mr. Speaker, not to sound like a narcissist, but I wonder if we currently have quorum in the House.

And the count having been taken:

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

No, we do not. Call in the members.

[An hon. member]

Are you sure?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

And the count having been retaken:

We now have quorum. They came to hear the speech of the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, to whom I give the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, not to sound narcissistic, but if we are going to talk, there should be people here to listen.

We are here today to debate the government's bill, which would implement the main measures of the budget. Budgets are highly technical and theoretical, but this gives us a chance to really dig deep.

My first observation is about the budget, as introduced by the minister, election promises and the format of the bill, which is 370 pages long and covers many topics that have nothing to do with the budget. This is called an omnibus bill.

I will remind members that four years ago, back in 2015, the Liberals made a promise. During the election campaign, they made several promises to Canadians in order to get elected. These promises were scrapped, however. The fourth paragraph on page 30 of their election platform states the following:

We will not resort to legislative tricks to avoid scrutiny.

[The former prime minister] has used prorogation to avoid difficult political circumstances. We will not.

[The former prime minister] has also used omnibus bills to prevent Parliament from properly reviewing and debating his proposals.

This is exactly what we are debating today. Today we are debating an omnibus bill into which the government inserted measures that have nothing to do with the budget. Four years ago, the Liberals promised not to do this, but they did it anyway.

Must I remind the House that, at around the same time last year, we were all here studying the previous budget implementation bill? The government had slipped in a dozen or so pages of legal provisions to allow companies facing prosecution for corruption, among other charges, to sign separate agreements. These provisions were not properly debated by parliamentarians. The Senate asked the minister to testify, but he refused.

That is what gave rise to the SNC-Lavalin scandal. Last year's bill included a process to allow for separate trials or agreements. That led to the director of public prosecutions' decision to proceed to trial on September 4. Ten days later, the former attorney general agreed to this proposal, and that is when partisan politics seeped into the legal process. That is what later led the former attorney general and the former president of the Treasury Board to be booted out of the Liberal caucus for having stood up and told Canadians the truth.

I am talking about this sad episode in Canadian democracy precisely because what we have before us today is a government that was elected under false promises, a government that promised the moon and sought to be pure as the driven snow but, in the end, did not keep its promises. That is essentially it. We have an omnibus bill.

Now let us talk about what is really going on with this bill, the government's budget implementation bill. What is the deal with this budget? Once again, we must not forget that the Liberals got themselves elected on the basis of budget promises they most certainly did not keep. The last paragraph on page 76 of the Liberal Party platform mentions the planning framework, the budgeting framework. It says right there in black and white:

With the Liberal plan, the federal government will have a modest short-term deficit of less than $10 billion in each of the next two fiscal years....

The platform also stated that the deficit would decline in the third year and that Canada would return to a balanced budget in 2019-20.

That was the promise that got the Liberals elected. Their bold but not-so-brilliant idea was to make a solemn pledge to run small deficits and eliminate the deficit entirely in 2019-20. That deadline has arrived, and what happened? Those modest deficits ballooned into three big deficits in excess of $70 billion. This is 2019-20, the year they were supposed to get rid of the deficit, but instead, this year's deficit is $19.8 billion.

Twice now I have asked the Minister of Tourism and the Liberal member for Surrey-Centre, if I remember correctly, to tell me the amount of this year’s deficit. They can never come up with the simple and yet very serious figure of $19.8 billion. How can we trust these people who get elected by promising, hand on heart, that they will generate only small deficits and zero deficit in 2019, when they generated three large deficits plus a huge one on the year they were meant to deliver a zero deficit?

What the Liberals fail to understand is that a deficit is a bill that our children and grandchildren will have to pay. A deficit today is a tax tomorrow. It will have to be paid sooner or later. Why did this happen? Because we are living beyond our means.

I would like to remind the House that, historically speaking, deficits are permitted under special conditions. You will remember that we ran deficits during the war. We had to defeat the Nazi menace. We will soon be celebrating the 75th anniversary of the Normandy landings on June 6. It was not until Prime Minister Louis Saint-Laurent that fiscal balance was restored, and I am not just saying that because I happen to represent the riding of Louis-Saint-Laurent.

It was in the early 1970s, under the Liberal government led by Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the current Prime Minister’s father, that we began running deficits in times of prosperity.

It was unfortunate for the Canadian economy. Indeed, fast forward 50 years and the son of the prime minister who ran deficits in times of growth is doing exactly the same thing, running four huge deficits in a period of rapid global economic expansion.

I truly have a great deal of respect and esteem for the Minister of Finance, as I do for all those who run for election and offer their services to Canadians and who, proud of their personal experience, wish to put it to good use. The Minister of Finance had a stellar career on Bay Street. We might even call him a Bay Street baron for having administered his family’s fortune so well. When he was head of the family company, Morneau Shepell, he never ran deficits.

When he was in the private sector, the Minister of Finance never ran a deficit, but since he moved to the public sector, since he has been using taxpayer money, since he has been using money that belongs to Canadian workers, he has been running back-to-back deficits.

How many have there been? There have been one, two, three, four budgets, and there have been one, two, three, four deficits. Four out of four, that is the grand slam of mismanaged public funds, while, in the private sector, he was a model money manager, an example to be followed.

To say the least, he is now neither a model or an example to be followed. Generating deficits during periods of economic growth is the ultimate heresy. No serious economist will tell you that this is a good time to generate a deficit. Quite the contrary, when the economic cycle picks up, it is time to put money aside.

They were very lucky. When they were elected, they took over the G7 country with the best economic track record. When we were in power, we were so intent on serious and rigorous management that we were the first G7 country to recover from the great crisis of 2008-12. That was thanks to the informed and rigorous management of the late Hon. Jim Flaherty, Minister of Finance, and Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper. These people inherited the best economic situation among the G7 nations, as well as a $2.5 billion budget surplus, which will not be the case in five months if Canadians choose us to form the next government.

Worse still, in the past four years, they have taken advantage of the sensational global economic growth and, of course, the economic strength of the United States, which has been experiencing growth for several years. What did they do with it? They made a huge mess of things, and the monstrous deficits they have been running these past four years will be handed down to our children and grandchildren to pay in the future.

That is why we are strongly opposed to this bill, which flies in the face of two election promises: to do away with omnibus bills, and to only run small deficits before balancing the budget in 2019.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and Minister of Digital Government]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my honourable colleague for his speech and for giving us his version of history, but the facts say otherwise.

If we look at Canada's economic history, we see that the Conservative government we replaced generated huge deficits. It racked up more than $150 billion in debt. Perhaps that was an anomaly, so let us take a look at the previous majority Conservative government, that of Mr. Mulroney. It racked up over $350 billion in debt. The debt generated by the Conservatives amounts to half a billion dollars. That is huge. Since Canada’s national debt is approximately $700 billion, we could say that the Conservatives are responsible for more than half of it.

How can my colleague criticize our government with any amount of integrity or honesty?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say that my honourable colleague is my MP when I am in Ottawa, since I live in his riding, on Montcalm Street in Gatineau.

Four years ago, my colleague got elected by saying that the Liberal government would achieve a zero deficit by 2019-20, yet today, it is showing a $19.8-billion deficit. Must I also remind my honourable colleague that, while the Conservative Party was in power, we faced the worst economic crisis since the Great Recession? Nevertheless, as I said in my speech, although perhaps my colleague was not listening, under our government, Canada was the first G7 nation to recover. That is the exact opposite of what we are seeing now. The government is compulsively running deficits in a period of strong economic growth.

My colleague has a lot of nerve to talk about the former Conservative government, but I would remind him that this former Conservative government succeeded that of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who literally pioneered the running of deficits in times of economic growth.

If my colleague wants to talk about former governments, can I mention the former Liberal government and the sponsorship scandal? When will the Liberal Party reimburse the tens of millions of dollars they pocketed during the sponsorship scandal? That issue has yet to be dealt with.

The election campaign will begin in a few weeks. What credibility will my colleague have when he said that the government would achieve a zero deficit in 2019 and we now have a $19.8-billion deficit? The Liberals have no credibility at all.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question about the credibility and value of Liberal promises. In a single bill, the Liberals have managed to break three sacred promises they made during the last campaign.

I want to make a couple of comments in English. My friend talks about the 2008 budget, when the Conservatives were forced to spend money. He was not here, but he will recall that the initial iteration of the Conservative budget under Harper, leading into a global recession, was actually meant to massively cut back on expenditures in Canada. It was only when threatened with their own government's demise and having to seek permission from the Governor General to shut down all of Parliament when facing a non-confidence vote that the Conservatives reversed course and made virtue out of a crisis, saying, “Oh, here is our new budget responding to the global recession.”

This is an omnibus budget bill. Buried in it are significant changes to our refugee laws. It is obviously not a budget item to change immigration or refugee laws. One of the reasons my colleagues on the Conservative side are not arguing about this today is that they agree with the Liberals. In fact, they pushed the Liberals on these refugee claims, that they should be handled differently, much to the chagrin of many of the refugee advocates who previously advocated for the Liberal government.

Could the member verify if that is true, and maybe fully rectify the historical record of how deficits were first created under the Harper government?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent has no more than 30 seconds.

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

Mr. Speaker, because I so appreciate his presence here in the House, I was going to pay extravagant tribute to my colleague who, unfortunately, will not be running in the next election.

I would simply like to remind him of the facts. Because of our government, Canada was the first G7 country to recover from the crisis. Like my colleague, I admit that I am very disappointed to see what this government does with omnibus bills. It inserts elements that have absolutely nothing to do with the budget. It should have learned from its mistakes in the SNC-Lavalin scandal that cost it so dearly. They had to boot from caucus two former honourable ministers who stood up for the truth, the facts and the law of the land.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to speak to the 2019 budget. This budget is called “Investing in the Middle Class”. Improving life for middle-class Canadians has been our number one priority since we were elected.

Four years ago, the people of Brampton South elected me to represent them. Since 2015, I have been working in Ottawa to deliver on the promises I made throughout my campaign. Everyone in this House has made a commitment to serve Canadians. This is partly done by investing in initiatives that will boost the quality of life for all Canadians. The budget this year is an example of the opportunities that Canada can provide to Canadians.

Our government's commitment to serve Canadians through investment can be seen in Brampton. In 2016-17, Brampton was given almost $60 million through the gas tax fund, and in 2017-18 we introduced a one-time top-up to the gas tax fund for infrastructure investments. For the 2018-19 fiscal year, Brampton was given over $33 million.

Since November 2015, we have had millions of dollars in federal funding for infrastructure projects that will benefit the city of Brampton. In addition, Brampton will benefit from a federal investment in the GO Transit Metrolinx regional express rail. From the $1.9-billion investment, over $750 million will be invested in the Kitchener corridor to improve commute times for residents of Brampton, Peel, Toronto and Wellington.

People in the middle class deserve a government that recognizes their potential and encourages their growth. I believe that the budget represents our belief in them as it looks toward our promising future. Canadians have put their faith in our government to present new ideas and deliver results. The 2019 budget reflects the needs of families, employees, students and seniors. It is a solid plan to give them a better future.

A better future starts with investing in young people and their education. Students are often kept from pursuing their education because of financial obstacles. The 2019 budget would lower interest rates for students and give them a six-month period to pursue their future plans before gathering interest on loans. The budget also seeks to support students who are parents or have disabilities. It also promotes programs that encourage the enrolment of indigenous students in post-secondary education.

These are just some of the ways in which we advocate for the success of the next generation. Budget 2018 strengthened our economy and ensured a low unemployment rate.

This is also the time to address the climate emergency. Budget 2019 has a strong plan to create eco-friendly solutions while maintaining an affordable lifestyle for Canadians. The budget intends to make zero-emission cars $5,000 cheaper, as well as encouraging their building. The creation of a home retrofit program will lower electricity and energy bills for Canadians.

We have been fighting climate impact since 2015. We have invested $1.5 million in Brampton under Public Safety Canada's national disaster mitigation program for the riverwalk study. We committed $175,000 for an environmental assessment strategic plan and sustainability framework for it as well. We have also committed $10 million for 10 water projects in Brampton and $22 million in funding for erosion protection initiatives in the Toronto, Peel and York regions.

Thinking of the future generations also includes supporting new families. An issue we see come up again and again is the struggle for young families to invest in long-term housing. The 2019 budget introduced the first-time homebuyer incentive, which would encourage home ownership by making housing cheaper. The incentive would help thousands of first-time homebuyers over the next three years. Budget 2019 also makes plans to build 42,000 new rental housing units, as well as to provide $300 million to begin the housing supply challenge. Through these changes, we are promoting happy homes without unnecessary costs.

Access to affordable housing is essential to promote the security and well-being of all Canadians. When Canadians are provided with a comfortable home life, it is easier for them to do well in the workplace. So far, we have been successful.

However, because our workforce and economy are continuously growing, employees can be left without access to training that improves their professional skills in their present and future jobs. The 2019 budget introduced the Canada training benefit program, which would give working Canadians better and more consistent skills training, financial aid to pay for the training, employment insurance support and job security. This is the next phase in our plan to strengthen the middle class.

While the middle class flourishes, there is still a percentage that has been left behind. Without quality health care, Canadians face some of the highest drug prices, leaving them unable to afford the prescriptions they need. No one should have to choose between buying the medicine they need or putting food on their table.

I am proud to be a member of the health committee, where I helped study the development of a national pharmacare program. We then made 18 recommendations to the government through the report “Pharmacare Now: Prescription Medicine Coverage for All Canadians”. I am proud to see the government acting on the report.

Budget 2019 aims to make prescriptions more affordable by announcing plans for the Canadian drug agency, which will work to lower prescription costs. The Canadian drug agency will connect all provinces and territories, giving them access to prescriptions. Through this plan, Canadians will save $3 billion each year.

With less time spent worrying about their health, housing and job security, Canadians will have more time to focus on the things they care about. For many, this involves becoming more involved in their communities.

Infrastructure funding is necessary to get ahead with local and municipal governments, which is why we are investing an additional $2.2 billion into infrastructure funding, especially under the circumstances where certain provincial governments have not been doing their part. Budget 2019 recognizes that advances in public transit, housing and community facilities make all the difference.

Local projects and community services are at the heart of Canadian society. Included in these services are locally based projects that encourage seniors to be active members of the community. Seniors have made significant contributions in these areas and are now more than ever capable and interested in participating.

Budget 2019 aims to maintain the guaranteed income supplement to ensure seniors get the most out of their retirement. It also takes direct action to protect their pensions by automatically registering seniors who are 70 or older but have not applied yet to receive their retirement benefits with the Canada pension plan. This will help tens of thousands of seniors across Canada.

Our budget also supports pay transparency, something our government has pushed for relentlessly. These measures will make it easier for our government to look at wage gaps and begin to solve them. This will help improve the status of women further. We know that when women make only 87¢ on the $1 compared to men, something is wrong.

Several countries, including the United Kingdom and Germany, have pay transparency measures. Canada needs to join these countries in making wages available for public view. When we can inspire employers to act on unfair wage gaps, we will improve the status of women all over Canada. This is not only the responsible thing to do, but it is morally right.

Budget 2019 is not just a list of numbers, names and affected demographics. It is a detailed plan of action, which can lead Canada into a better and brighter future. By investing in the middle class, we invest in all Canadians. This budget represents what our nation's focus should be. Informed, careful and planned budgeting is what will lead to Canada's prosperity.

I urge my fellow members to support the budget.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work that the member for Brampton South and I did together on the health committee. I have a question about the budget.

As everyone in the House knows, Oshawa has had some really rough times with the closure of the GM plant. This year the government will have a $20-billion deficit. Because the world economy has been doing so well, there are $20 billion in new revenue. I hear my Liberal colleagues talk about creating one million new jobs.

I want to throw out a scary statistic for my Liberal colleagues and also for my colleagues on this side. If we look at a $20-billion deficit and $20 billion in revenue, the $40 billion extra spent this year is enough to have one million Canadians making $40,000 a year just to sit at home. If this is the type of job creation the Liberals are talking about, I really have a problem with that.

Right now Canada's competitiveness has gone down three points in the G7. We are the point where we have gone down to the 13th least competitive.

My colleague has an auto sector in her community. She has seen job losses. Could she point out in the budget if there is anything that will help the Brampton plant when it is time to acquire a new mandate for that plant? Is there anything in the budget that will help these plants compete properly with American plants so they can get a new product in those plants?

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, budget 2019 is not just a list of numbers, names and affected demographics. It is a detailed plan of action that can lead Canada into a better and brighter future.

We have important investments in the innovation sector. We are improving our infrastructure. We are lifting thousands out of poverty. We have helped to create one million new jobs. I know a lot more needs to be done. I know my hon. colleague would prefer that money go into the pockets of the wealthiest 1%, but we know that meaningful changes come with investment in the other 99%. As I said, we need to do a lot more.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member a question through you.

Most people in my riding do not have enough money to buy an RRSP. Many of them have difficulty paying their rent or buying groceries at the end of the week.

How will it help them to be able to buy a house with an RRSP that they do not have?

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since 2015, we have lifted tens of thousands of people out of poverty and cut the rate by 20%. We know there is more work to do. We launched the first national poverty reduction strategy and that will help to lift more Canadians out of poverty.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, something that comes to my mind when we talk about the budget and what we have done to help middle-class families is the Canada child benefit, which we changed when we came into power. We started to send it to people tax free. We stopped sending it to the wealthiest people.

Could the member expand on what that has meant for her riding and the people in it? In my riding of Avalon, each year approximately $48 million go to needy families, which is spend on their children and the necessities they need. It is tax free. Could she please comment on that?

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I was door-knocking last Saturday, I had very good feedback. This July, we are doubling the Canada child benefit. It is good news and it benefits the kids. When I meet with their mothers, they are so happy with this. We are lifting 300,000 kids out of poverty with the Canada child benefit. I am very happy with the approach of our government.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address some of the failings of the Liberal government over the last four years and reflect upon just how disastrous it has been.

The heckling continues over there. The Liberals never miss an opportunity to get some good heckling in. Our colleagues across the way are chirping loud and doing all they can to throw us off. However, it will not work. I have been chirped at by the best and they definitely are not the best.

I rise today to talk to Bill C-97, the budget implementation act. Essentially, it is an extension of the government's attempt to cover up what could be actually the biggest affront to our democracy in our country's history. It has attempted to cover up potentially the biggest corruption at the highest levels of our government, and that is the SNC-Lavalin case. That is what we are seeing here today. I bring us back to that again because I feel I have to. The gallery is packed. I know Canadians from coast to coast to coast knew this speaker was coming up.

I would be remiss if I did not remind Canadians from all across our country that it was day 10 of the 2015 election when the then member of Papineau committed to Canadians that under his government, he would let the debate reign. He said that he would not resort to parliamentary tricks such as omnibus bills or closure of debate. He also told Canadians around that same time that he would balance the budget in 2019. Those are three giant “oops”, perhaps disingenuous comments. I do not think he has lived up to any of them at this point.

As of today, the government has invoked closure over 70 times. Why? Because the government does not like what it is hearing. If the Liberals do not like what the opposition is saying and they do not want Canadians to hear the truth, they invoke closure. This means we cannot debate really important legislation. They limit the amount of time for debate on that legislation. The BIA, Bill C-97, is just one of them. Does that sound like letting the debate reign? It does not.

It is interesting that whenever things go sideways for the Prime Minister, a couple of things happen. We see him even less in the House or something always happens to change the channel. That is what we have today.

Bill C-97 is really just a cover-up budget. We have talked about that. It just goes in line with more and more of the government's kinds of wacky ways, where it says it will spend money and perhaps it doles it out. However, the money is not really going to things that Canadians need the most.

We see $600 million in an election year being given to the media, a media that is supposed to be impartial. That is a $600 million bailout.

We also know that in the previous budget, approximately $500 million was given to the Asian Infrastructure Bank. That $500 million is not being spent in Canada for one piece of an infrastructure.

I rose to talk about a few things. One of the things that is really disappointing for me is this. When the Liberals came to power in 2015, a lot of promises were made, and this one hits home for us. I have brought this up time and again in the House. The Liberals said that they would put an end to the softwood lumber dispute.

I think it was in 2016 that the Prime Minister stood in the House and told Canadians that he was going to have a deal done within 100 days. He had a new BFF, the Minister of International Trade Diversification said. Both were just giddy. They were going to get this deal done and put an end to the softwood lumber irritant once and for all, yet last week, we found out from the Senate Liberal leader that the Prime Minister had other priorities ahead of softwood lumber.

Over 140 communities and over 140,000 jobs are tied to forestry in my province of British Columbia. Forestry is a cornerstone industry in my province, yet it was not a priority for the Prime Minister in renegotiating his NAFTA deal.

What we are seeing with the Liberal government is that rural Canadians are just not its focus.

Last week I also met with some real estate folks and some Canadian homebuilder folks. They told me that the Liberal government's B-20 stress test and the shared equity program, which is geared toward trying to get Canadians into homes, is actually hurting that industry. The real estate industry is saying that the B-20 stress test, which was geared more for Toronto and Vancouver markets but is all across the country, impacts rural Canadians negatively .

Almost $15 billion has been kept out of that industry, meaning that it is harder for Canadians to get into the home ownership they strive for. It is a step into the middle class. People put money toward something they own rather than putting it into something that someone else owns. The government's failed B-20 policy and the shared equity program is hurting Canadians. It is another example of how Canadians are worse off with the Liberal government.

I will bring us to a couple of years ago. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the Minister of National Defence all have it down pat. They can put their hands on their hearts and say that they really care, yet it is the same Prime Minister who told veterans that they were asking for too much.

Yesterday was a very important day, because we saw the closure of the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls commission and we saw its report. The government knew that this day was coming, but did it put any money in the 2019 budget for that? There is nothing.

The Liberals like to say that Canadians are better off than they were under our previous Conservative administration, but it is actually the opposite. Canadians are worse off since the Liberal government took over. Eighty-one per cent of middle-income Canadians are seeing higher taxes since the Liberal government came to power. The average income increase for middle income families is $840. The government's higher pension plan premiums could eventually cost Canadians up to $2,200 per household. The Liberals cancelled the family tax cut of up to $2,000 per household. They cancelled the arts and fitness tax credit of up to $225 per child. They cancelled the education and textbook tax credits of up to $560 per student. The government's higher employment insurance premiums are up $85 per worker. The Liberal carbon tax could cost up to $1,000 per household and be as high as $5,000 in the future.

The Prime Minister called small businesses tax cheats. The government's intrusive tax measures for small businesses will raise taxes on thousands of family businesses across Canada.

The list goes on and on. Bill C-97 is just the capping of a scandal-ridden administration, and to that, I say, good riddance.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have issues with the speech given by the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George, particularly when he mentioned the B-20 stress test.

The Liberal government has brought in measures to bring affordability to the housing market. His leader, the Leader of the Opposition, is wishy-washy on this subject. One day he says that he will eliminate the stress test, but the next day he says that he will think about it or revisit it.

Is the hon. member's leader and his party going to take the stress test away, or are they just going to revisit it?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, our leader has been very clear. He has said that he is going to actually fix the government's failed piece of legislation. As a matter of fact, it was brought up at committee, and when asked to study the devastating impact the B-20 stress test is having on the market, the Liberals voted no. They did not want the truth to come out. Plain and simple, it is just another cover-up.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to continue with what the member for Surrey—Newton mentioned on the B-20 stress test, we know that people all across the country have been heavily impacted. None of the measures in the budget will help offset the impact of the B-20 stress test on young people and young families trying to get into housing. I would like the member's comments on this.

About $480,000 is what the shared equity mortgage plan would allow for, plus the down payment. In the GTA area specifically, when I looked at the price of homes, only about 500 homes out of over 20,000 listings would be eligible for this plan. It would be marginal. That is what CMHC said. It would have a marginal impact on the market. It would not be transformational in any way, but the government would put at risk $1.25 billion to play the real estate market.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on whether this would be a wise use of our money instead of just fixing the B-20 stress test.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what we have seen with the B-20 stress test is that it is forcing new homebuyers, some first-time buyers and millennials, to alternative lending institutions, which, of course, as we know, have higher interest rates. This is actually putting those millennials, the very same people the government says it wants to protect, at more of a disadvantage. We are also seeing that it impacts Canadians in rural communities the most. We are also seeing that if they are being denied a home, they are actually taking some of those funds they were going to put into home ownership and are buying higher-valued vehicles. They are still finding a way to spend that money, just not on home ownership, which is actually putting the Canadian market and Canadians at a further disadvantage.

The government has not thought this through, and it is having a detrimental effect on the industry.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When answering a question, I mentioned the Canada child benefit, and I just want to correct the record. It is not doubling; it is being indexed to inflation.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Thank you for clarifying that.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

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

Mr. Speaker, asking for clarity from the Conservative Party is something we really need to do more often. For example, we just asked about the stress test, and I can appreciate the concerns related to that, but there are two other areas I think Canadians deserve some clarity on.

We are still waiting for the Doug Ford approach on what the Conservative Party nationally is going to be doing on the environment. We are told that it will be at the end of the month. I guess Mr. Ford and the Conservative brain thrust here in Ottawa are meeting to come up with that on June 28. We are anxiously awaiting that.

There also seems to be a bit of a flip-flop with regard to deficits. Originally, the Conservatives were saying that they could do it in a year, possibly two. Now they are saying four or five years, and so forth.

I wonder if my friend could tell me to what degree he believes the Conservatives are actually being transparent with Canadians, when they are not telling them what their true intentions are. The member wanted to focus on the press, for example. What are their true intentions for the CBC? There are so many issues. So much needs to be more transparent. When can we anticipate that from the Conservative Party?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is like the pot calling the kettle black.

We have been clear and transparent right from the very beginning. I would remind my colleague across the way that it was literally two weeks into the 2015 campaign when the Liberals' fully costed plan came out. We will take no lessons from the folks sitting across the way. I would warn them to not get used to the seats across the way, because October is coming, and they will be on their way.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is time to take a look at the Liberals' record. There are two and a half weeks left in this Parliament. The budget implementation bill that is before us today is the government's last. Anything not contained in that bill will have to wait until after the election. Budget 2019 is consistent with this government's approach of saying one thing and doing the opposite.

First, let us talk about this so-called green government. Since the last election, bitumen extraction in Alberta has skyrocketed. We are talking about an increase of 25%. That is no small thing. Extraction grew even faster than under Stephen Harper. In fact, production has grown so much that it has exceeded transport capacity.

Today, the Liberals and the Conservatives would have us believe that there is a pipeline problem, but that is not the case. There is an overproduction problem, which is not the same thing. To limit overproduction, the government is proposing to support new investments in the oil sands with accelerated capital cost allowance. A total of $2.7 billion in taxpayers' money will be wasted on this tax expenditure.

In one year alone, the government announced $19 billion in new oil investments. The oil industry certainly got the message. If you look at production estimates, it is clear that the industry wants to maintain the level of growth it has seen the past four years. This will result in more overproduction and cause prices to continue their downturn. This is meant to make us believe that more pipelines are inevitable and that we have no choice but to export and pollute more.

The direct consequence of this government's policies is that energy east will be forced back on us. The Liberal government is working to keep us in the 20th century, bogged down in the tar sands.

[Alain Rayes]

Where do you get your gas?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at my daughter's school there is a big banner saying “zero tolerance for bullying”. The previous Conservative member who spoke accused the Liberals of bullying, and now the member for Victoriaville is hurling epithets and questions at me. There should be zero tolerance for bullying here too. We have a right to speak without being interrupted.

To get back to what I was saying, that is not what we need in Quebec. We have already started to go green. GHG emissions per capita are two and a half times lower in Quebec than in the rest of Canada. A policy for the 21st century is to make polluting expensive and avoiding pollution profitable.

I can already hear the Liberals saying that they created the carbon tax, so let us talk about it. The government imposes a tax, then gives the money back to those who paid it. It is a circle that does not result in any real transfer of wealth from polluters to the good guys. It does not make it profitable to go green. It will not result in a true green shift. It does not entitle anyone to make green speeches. It is merely an image, just like the government has been since it was elected: an image, no more, no less, but definitely no more.

Let us move on. In the lead-up to the budget, the Bloc québécois reached out to Quebeckers, and what we consistently heard was that their main priorities are health and education. There is nothing about that in the budget. Health transfers have been capped at 3% for two years, and yet, health costs in Quebec have risen by 5.2%. You do not need a Nobel prize in mathematics to see that there is a problem. The healthcare system is stretched to its limit, and wait times are getting longer. Something has to give, and everyone knows it.

Everything I have just said about the healthcare system also applies to education. Teachers are as burnt out as nurses. It is the same problem, except that, in this case, transfers were capped at 3% 15 years ago. Health and education are Quebeckers’ two main priorities. There is nothing about that in Bill C-97. The government decided to gradually move away from Quebecker’s priorities. That is abundantly clear in Bill C-97.

Now, let us look at the measures the government has taken to stimulate the economy. Its primary measure involves infrastructure. In and of itself, that is a good thing, but the methods used are another story. By multiplying specific programs, each one with very strict criteria, Ottawa has ruined everything. Federal requirements have caused a tug of war with Quebec and will paralyze the entire process. The result is striking: the money is starting to trickle down just before the election. We had to wait a long time. In the first two years of its term, the government spent $100 per Quebecker and $700 for each Canadian outside Quebec.

We know the federal government is building precious little infrastructure. It owns barely 2% of all public infrastructure, while the provinces and municipalities own 98%. Through federal transfers, the government is financing infrastructure that does not belong to it, that is not within its jurisdiction and that it does not have the means to prioritize intelligently. The government had good intentions, but the whole undertaking has been a monumental failure on the ground.

The money is not flowing. The federal criteria are too rigid and do not meet communities' needs. During the last election campaign, the Liberals promised to transfer blocks of infrastructure funding. They promised to mind their own business and do their job. That is yet another broken promise, and Quebec is paying the price.

As I said, my leader and I have been travelling around a lot listening to Quebeckers. People do not realize how future-focused Quebec is. Quebeckers are creative and innovative. Yesterday's tinkerers are now developing video games, designing new aircraft and working on artificial intelligence. Year after year, Quebec accounts for between 40% and 45% of Canada's tech exports, even though its share of Canada's economy is only half that much.

In metropolitan areas across Quebec, there are at least 5,000 technology startups. I think of it as Silicon Valley North. What is in Bill C-97 for technology? Is it an aerospace policy? No. Is it patient capital to let our technology start-ups develop here in Canada rather than being bought out by U.S. web giants? It is not that either.

However, there is some venture capital to help out the rest of Canada. That is how it is in all areas. When Quebec succeeds, Ottawa is not there. Take supply management, for example. Our regional agriculture lends itself well to local distribution. That is the future. Instead of helping, the government is hurting agriculture. It has signed three trade agreements with three breaches, and not a single penny has been paid to farmers.

We scoured Bill C-97 for the compensation, but it is not there. Our producers were taken for a ride. They will get nothing before the election. That is also the case for Davie. Does Bill C-97 announce a review of its horrible naval strategy? The answer is obviously no.

The same goes for the fight against tax havens. These loopholes allow banks and multi-millionaires to get out of paying taxes. The government needs to act fast, but instead, it has legalized three new tax havens. In my private member's bill, I proposed a working solution to close the loopholes, but, of course, all the Liberals but one voted it down. Like the sheriff of Nottingham, they would rather defend fat cats than low-income workers. The Conservatives also voted against my bill, but at least they were being true to type. Unlike the Liberals, they do not try to dress up as Robin Hood.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague, who is also a young MP.

Does he think the government is doing enough on the environment? The government boasts that it is going to meet its targets, yet all the reports released to date, including one from Environment and Climate Change Canada, say that Canada is not on track to meet its targets, even though they were set by the Harper government.

Our greenhouse gas emissions went up by 12 megatonnes over last year. It would take Canada 200 years to meet its reduction targets. The government is still subsidizing the fossil fuel sector. It has no overall plan for moving jobs to renewable energy sectors. There is ample proof that six to eight times more jobs could be created in renewable energy than in fossil fuels.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît for her question. Her comments were very astute.

As I said in my speech, under this government's watch, oil sands extraction has increased by 25%. That says it all. This government says it cares about the environment and that it is polluting less, yet extraction has increased by 25% in four years.

Next, I talked about their notorious carbon tax. They are rewarding those who pollute. This is not a wealth transfer or incentive for those who pollute less, nor is it a penalty for polluters. It is an empty gesture that is meant to sound environmentally responsible, but when we really look at the actions taken, it is not the same thing. That is why Canada's reputation around the world on environmental matters has plummeted to zero. This is simply not good enough, considering the urgency. Urgent action is needed. We cannot afford to let the situation deteriorate any further. All reports from the IPCC and scientists are telling us that we need to act now, that strong action is needed right away.

These measures could also help Quebec's economy. We have everything we need to transition to a green economy, a forward-looking, 21st century economy. The only thing missing is the will on the other side of the House, which clearly is not there. We hear nothing but empty rhetoric.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the member's comments with regard to a price on pollution. The Province of Quebec has been very progressive in terms of its attitude on having a price on pollution, and we see that as a very strong positive. I would argue that the national government having a nationwide price on pollution ultimately complements some of the fine work that has taken place in provinces like Quebec.

One of the goals of having a strong national government is to ensure that we have a healthier nation with regard to our environment, or a healthier planet as a direct result. In many different ways, there are lots of positive progressive measures happening in different regions of our country. Quebec is a very good example of the price on pollution.

Would my colleague across the way not agree that it is good that Canada has a national price on pollution?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his words of praise for Quebec's carbon pricing system, which is working quite well, though much still remains to be done.

With respect to the national carbon tax, I would say that its criteria are lacking. Major polluters are currently exempt, and only consumers, meaning Canadians, are paying it and receiving a cheque in return.

If we really want to leverage this measure to bring about a change in behaviour, we have to start by going after the main emitters, rewarding those who do good things for the environment and punishing those who increase pollution.

Yes, it is a good idea, and it sounds good, but as for the real, concrete impact, the Bloc Québécois and I believe it is not enough.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon will have about eight minutes, and then two minutes when we return, as well as five minutes of questions.

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to budget 2019, a budget that makes it easier for Canadians to thrive and join a prosperous middle class.

Housing affordability is a large part of this budget. That is because Canadians have told us that the rising cost of housing is one of the biggest barriers to getting ahead in life. Housing supply has not kept up with demand, which has driven up costs to the point where an adequate place to call home has become out of reach for too many families. This means they do not have the safe, stable base they need to find work, study, raise their families and contribute to their communities.

This is why our government developed a national housing strategy, which includes a number of initiatives to boost the housing supply, focusing primarily on the needs of the most vulnerable populations. These programs are already having an impact on communities across the country by giving more Canadians safe, affordable rental homes. In fact, budget 2019 includes an expansion of the successful rental construction financing program, which will add significantly to the rental housing supply and, in turn, bring down the cost to rent.

Today, I want to speak about an innovative program in the budget that makes it more affordable for young Canadians to buy their first homes. While it is true that whether one rents or owns it is still a home, many Canadians aspire to own their own homes. When first-time homebuyers purchase a home, it frees up even more rental supply and leads to lower rental costs for those in housing need.

Unfortunately, for too many Canadians, home ownership is increasingly out of reach. Beginning in September, the first-time homebuyer incentive will help more young Canadians buy their first homes by reducing their mortgage payments. Eligible buyers who have the minimum down payment required for an insured mortgage will be able to finance a portion of their home purchase through a shared equity mortgage with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

The new program will provide funding of 5% of the purchase price for existing homes and 10% for newly constructed homes. Rather than making ongoing monthly payments on the shared equity portion of the mortgage, the buyer would repay the incentive at a later date. This keeps monthly costs down for homebuyers so they have money for everyday expenses.

Details of the program are being finalized and will be announced at the end of the year. However, I can tell my colleagues in the House that for families a buying $400,000 home, this program could save as much as $228 per month and up to $2,700 per year per family.

Officials at the Department of Finance and CMHC have worked hard to develop a program that is balanced and achieves our objectives of helping first-time buyers without undoing the progress we have already made through measures that prevent excessive borrowing and limit house price inflation. It does this by focusing specifically on those who need help the most.

Younger Canadians who have a household income of about $120,000 a year or less have trouble affording home ownership. It ensures they do not take on too much debt by limiting total borrowing to four times their income. In addition, to be sure the program does not end up contributing to the house price inflation, we have capped it at $1.2 billion over the next three years. The inflation effect will be minimal, less than 0.5% at the most, if that.

This program will make home ownership more affordable for young Canadians in a way that is more effective than the measures some other people have suggested. Measures like reducing the mortgage insurance stress test or extending the maximum amortization period to 30 years would simply put Canadians into greater debt. The rate of home price inflation would be five to six times greater than the maximum anticipated by the first-time homebuyer incentive.

Finally, by doubling the incentive for the purchase of a new home, the new program will encourage new supply to meet housing demands, which in turn keeps prices down for all Canadians.

This program will work in all markets, including Vancouver and Toronto. Even with a cap of four times the household income, first-time buyers will have the option. It may not be a condo in Yaletown or a house in Riverdale, but there are starter homes in both metropolitan areas that could be purchased using this program. In fact, based on last year's activity, more than 2,000 homebuyers in Toronto would have been eligible for this FTHBI, and over 1,000 homeowners in greater Vancouver would have been eligible.

Budget 2019 will also establish a fund to help existing shared equity mortgage providers scale up their businesses and encourage new players to enter the market. The fund will provide up to $100 million in lending over five years and will be administered by CMHC.

Our support for Canadians trying to purchase their first home does not end there. Budget 2019 also provides first-time buyers greater freedom to invest their RRSP savings by increasing the homebuyer plan withdrawal from $25,000 to $35,000.

We have also proposed the new housing supply challenge. This $300-million initiative will help municipalities and other stakeholder groups to find ways to break down barriers that limit the creation of new housing.

Infrastructure Canada and CMHC will collaborate on designs for the new measures.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon has two minutes remaining in his speaking time.

The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, 100,000 Canadians would be able to buy their first homes. We have already received a great deal of positive reaction to budget 2019 and its progress in boosting affordability. Canadians are pleased with the way it would help young householders realize their dream of home ownership and encourage the construction of new homes.

For example, Heather Tremain, CEO of Options for Homes, had this to say:

The Federal budget takes concrete steps to address Canada's housing affordability problem and will help to improve access to home ownership for middle income earners.

We understand the many benefits that come from having a safe and adequate home that one can afford. Through budget 2019, we are once again demonstrating that the Government of Canada is back in housing. We are delivering an ambitious, comprehensive and realistic plan that would create much needed new housing, protect the affordability of existing homes and include new support for first-time home buyers. This is a plan that would benefit generations to come.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the House to support the budget implementation bill for the benefit of our economy and a more inclusive and prosperous society for all Canadians.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member spent the last part of his speech talking about this supposedly great new initiative for first-time homebuyers. In the majority of his riding, which is part of Abbotsford, British Columbia, and Mission, British Columbia, there are no homes a person could buy, and receive money, that would qualify for this.

Is the member aware of the top-end limit for this initiative, and could he tell us how many people in Abbotsford and Mission would actually qualify, based on this program, which I can tell him right now, would not apply to his region?

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about my colleague's riding. I had the privilege to announce $11.8 million for 67 affordable units. We are going to provide rental units for 30% less than the market price. I also had the privilege to announce $7 million for 36 units to look after women and children, rental space that will also be offered at 30% less.

These are the good things we are doing in his riding.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, despite what my colleague said about access to housing, I will still be voting against this bill.

I hosted a luncheon in Saint-Hyacinthe on the topic and I learned that there are now over 200 families on the waiting list for low-income housing there. Seniors in the region are also in dire need of it. A number of people have told me that they spend 30% to 50% of their income on housing.

The students and people under 30 in my riding are saying they are in debt. They do not have RRSPs with which to buy a house.

This budget does not reflect the reality of the people in my riding at all. I cannot fathom how my colleague can say that they have solved the housing problem.

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think we need to convince a whole lot of people on this pretty straightforward deal. About 100,000 Canadians will be eligible to buy a home within the next three years. For people who want a $400,000 home, we will pay a 10% down payment so they can buy it. This is for newly built homes. The federal government will chip in a 5% down payment for someone buying a second-hand home. I think this is very good news for first-time homebuyers.

Our government is making home ownership more affordable for the first time, allowing people to lower their monthly mortgage payments. I urge both sides of the House to pass this piece of legislation.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening all day to the Liberals say they have created a million jobs. I have a number for my colleagues and I would like them to pay attention to it.

This past year alone, the deficit was $20 billion, and because the world economy is doing so well, there has been a $20 billion increase in income. That is $40 billion. If the Liberals had decided to create jobs, this year alone they could have paid one million Canadians to sit at home and do absolutely nothing. They could have given each and every one of them $40,000 with the amount of debt the government is going into.

Right now, there is nothing in the budget to help with our competitiveness and productivity. The scary thing is that in my community and in those like mine that depend on manufacturing, we have to get more competitive.

Is the government going to choose deficit jobs that are created due to government deficit and spending, which do not really add anything to our productivity, or is it going to do something serious to help manufacturing jobs in my community?

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for bringing up the one million jobs we created in the country, 75% of which are full-time jobs.

We lifted 300,000 children over the poverty line. Our 10% increase in GIS benefited 900,000 seniors, putting many over the poverty line. The unemployment rate is the lowest it has been in our country for the last 40 years. We have the lowest tax rate for small businesses out of the G7 countries. The list goes on.

When people work, they bring more taxes into our coffers. I think we are going in the right direction. We will continue to help Canadians.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on this bittersweet day to speak for the last time in this storied institution.

On June 28, 2004, the fine people of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound elected me for the first time. It is an honour and a privilege that I have never taken lightly. They have sent me back here four more times.

I was born and raised on a farm in Amabel Township, the oldest of seven children. I attended a one-room rural school for six years before moving to a huge three-room rural school for grades seven and eight. I then attended Wiarton District High School. In May of 1972, while in grade 11, due to irreconcilable differences, along with a bit of Irish stubbornness, I left school while still only 15. It is not something I am proud of, but sometimes we all make mistakes in life. We have to live with those decisions and learn from them.

The reason I even mention this is that one of the things that makes Canada so great is that, with hard work and determination, we can be anything or do anything we put our minds to.

I had always wanted a farm, so after taking a couple of farm business management courses at Georgian College, and with the help of my parents, I started to piece together my future. Later that summer, I met this cute blonde girl from the other side of the tracks and on August 26, both at age 16, we had our first date. Three years later, on July 26, 1975, we got married. We raised our three sons, Brett, Curt and Cole, on our 330-head cow calf farm just south of Wiarton in Keppel Township.

I never had political aspirations but politics seemed to find me. In November 1991, I ran for township council as a councillor. I also served terms as deputy reeve and reeve in Keppel Township before being elected as the first mayor of the amalgamated Township of Georgian Bluffs in 2000 and then elected warden of Grey County in 2002. After being re-elected as mayor in November of 2003, I decided to seek the CPC nomination on March 2, 2004. I was successful and the rest is history.

Here we are, 15 years later, after five federal elections. I am very proud of having two private member's bills passed in this House unanimously: the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act and the Transboundary Waters Protection Act. I also worked very hard to see the end of the long-gun registry in 2012, something that was very important to my riding.

I have always been a constituency MP. That is what got me elected and that is what has kept me elected.

I will not miss the weekly trips to Ottawa or the political BS that comes with this place, but I can tell members I will sincerely miss the many good people I have met in my time here, like former colleagues Loyola Hearn of Newfoundland; Gail Shea of P.E.I.; Denis Lebel of Quebec; Stella Ambler and Daryl Kramp of Ontario; Leona Aglukkaq of Nunavut; Merv Tweed of Manitoba; Lynne Yelich of Saskatchewan; Rick Casson, James Rajotte and Monte Solberg of Alberta; and John Duncan of B.C. We still stay in touch and we will always remain friends.

The many Hill staff I have worked with, and this is only some of them, are such great people that I want to name some of the ones I have had special relationships with over the years. They are Amy Mills, Kelly Williams, Ann Marie Keeley, Kim Purchase, Regan Watts, Bryan Rogers, Semhar Tekeste, Luwam Ghebre and Sean Murphy, just to name a few. They are the people who do the work behind the scenes and are sometimes not appreciated. However, I have valued working with them.

I have worked across party lines with people like the member for Sydney—Victoria, heck, I have even been to his farm, and the member for Cape Breton—Canso, who could not be here today I understand. However, while I have tried to overlook the fact that he is a Liberal, I just cannot accept the fact that he still cheers for a hockey team that has not won a Stanley Cup in over 52 years instead of cheering for my beloved Boston Bruins. It is just shameful. As well, I have worked with the member for Malpeque, whom I have butted heads with on the agriculture committee many times, but I have always respected him as we both always worked hard to try to make things better for farmers and agriculture across this country.

I also want to thank my staff, both present staff who are here today and former staff. Dianne Ackert has been with me for 12 years. She is unable to be here, as her mom is very ill and in the hospice. Our thoughts are with her mom. Chad Richards has been with me for seven years; Shea Angus, four years; Pam Sparkes, three years; as well as Kim Davis, who is also here, who has joined us in the last year. I thank all of you for your hard work over the years.

I also want to recognize former staff, and some are here today, Anna Marie Young, Genielle Hay, Dianne Byczok, Madi Murariu, Deborah Ingraham, Carol Weir, Kyleigh Benninger and Clarissa Sookram-Whipple, whom I am still thankful to call friends as well. I also want to thank my EDA, my five campaign managers and all the volunteers who worked tirelessly on my behalf in five elections.

To my present colleagues, what a team. It is indeed an honour to have worked with all of you. Please stay in touch. To my leader, I am proud that we were both elected on the same day in 2004, and I look forward to seeing you become Prime Minister in October.

I want to thank my and Darlene's good friends, Lisa and Carm Myles, who drove seven hours last night to be here today. As well, I wish them a happy 36th anniversary today. However, there is something wrong when people drive to Ottawa on their anniversary but we appreciate their being here.

I want to thank my siblings, Linda, Tom, Jerry, Brad, Mary Lou and Paul, my nieces and nephews, and their spouses, for their support over the years, as well as my two biggest fans, my mom and dad, who are no longer with us but I know are watching down on us today.

To Colonel Alex Ruff, who has earned the right to try to replace me in October, thanks for being here today and good luck this fall.

Lastly, to my wife Darlene. Your mom told you to never marry a farmer or a politician. You ended up with both, so being a bit of a black sheep, how did that advice work out for you? You have always supported me in everything I have tackled. I could not have done this without you. Thank you.

In closing, I have been so fortunate to have served in this grand place for 15 years and to have been a part of some great accomplishments, but I also reflect on some sad times. Losing my great friend, Jim Flaherty in April 2014; the shooting on October 22, 2014; and losing my seatmate, Gord Brown, just over a year ago will always stay with me.

However, it is time for me and my family to move on. It is time for me to spend more time with my four beautiful grandkids. Chesney, Shailan, Brookelin and Liam, here I come. It is time for more fishing and hunting, and much, much less politics. After 10 elections, my wife and I are both electioned out. Darlene says that my “give a darn” button is busted. She is right.

It has truly been a slice, Mr. Speaker, but I am out of here.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to give some of my thoughts about my good friend from Owen Sound. As the two of us ride off in the sunset in our tractors and leave this wonderful place, I will say a few things.

We were on the agriculture committee together when we were in opposition in government, but I never noticed much difference. We both worked hard together. It was a pleasure working with him, especially on agriculture.

Whether it was at committee, or at community centres across the country or in people's farmhouse kitchens, we were always there for the farmers and the people who produced the agriculture products for our country. I appreciate the work he has done. We are from different areas, but we worked well together.

I wish him, Darlene and his family all the best.

I would like to ask him a question. He came to our farm, ate the Eyking eggs and stayed with us. Will he and his lovely wife Darlene come back and have a feed of lobsters down on our beach?

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

We will do a couple of rounds of questions and then come back to the hon. member for a brief comment at the end.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to join our colleagues in thanking the member for his service. We had a brief time sitting on committee together. However, as members of the House know, MPs who travel together stay together in a sense. The most cross-partisan friendships that one will find are usually among those who have had the chance to travel together, as the member and I did.

I want to thank him. I know when we go through a variety of issues, or miss our families, or have health issues or whatnot that crop up, it takes a lot to be here. The amount of service that goes into it by members who have been here as long as he has is probably underappreciated by the public, and I will say that on the record.

On behalf of the New Democratic caucus and myself for having had the opportunity to work with him, I want to thank him for his service.

I certainly hope he makes the best of that time. A lot goes on in this place, but at the end of the day, there are things beyond this place that are far more important to us both for our health, but especially for our happiness. I thank the member very much.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too, like all my colleagues on both sides of the House, want to wish all the very best to the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. I knew him for about six years prior to his election in 2004. We both had the privilege of sitting on the Niagara Escarpment Commission. For the record, we did not always agree on preserving the escarpment commission, etc, but we certainly enjoyed each other's company.

I remember being so pleased and proud when he obtained the candidacy in 2004. I was completely confident, certainly hoped and prayed, that we would have the opportunity to continue to serve together. It has been a great 15 years for me serving with the hon. member, and a great six and a half years on the escarpment commission.

I, too, wish him all the very best.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for the member for Sydney—Victoria, yes, my wife and I enjoyed our last trip there. I searched and searched to find eggs in stores that did not have the name of “Eyking” on them.

Having said that, a lot of the time in politics partisanship goes way too far. We all put our socks and underwear on the same way, no matter what our different beliefs are, and I enjoyed that. The member mentioned lobster. An old friend of mine who I used to hunt with but who has moved on had a saying, “If you don't want me to come, don't invite me”. So yes, we will be there.

My hon. colleague from the NDP is right. We served on committee for a year or a year and a half. I have a lot of respect and time for him. We may have disagreed there, and that democracy is all about that. However, the respect was always there, coming from both ways. I sincerely thank him for his comments.

My hon. friend and colleague from Niagara Falls talks about the Niagara Escarpment Commission. Yes, those were tough years to deal with. While my hon. colleague tried to destroy the escarpment, I did my best to help save it.

I have short story. I knew the member for Niagara Falls had been in this place for nine years, from 1984 to 1993, and I had no idea he was going to put his name forth. When I called him to tell him I had won the nomination, he said, “Mine's tomorrow night.” I said, “Thanks for telling me.”

I am going to miss all my colleagues in this place, and I thank him for his comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, for those watching, I would like to say that we just heard our colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound say farewell. I would certainly like to join the other members of the House in thanking him for his service to Canadians.

Today, I am speaking to my constituents in Gatineau, a number of whom have been through quite a lot in recent years, including tornadoes and flooding. These last four years, we have made tremendous progress together under this government. I am of course referring to the Canada child benefit, which, in Gatineau alone, has put over $6 million in tax-free cash back into the pockets of parents every month. Furthermore, with summer fast approaching, students are working hard and benefiting from the fact that we doubled funding for summer jobs. We also brought back order, respect and stability to our public service, which had important needs to meet, challenges to face and growth to achieve given this government's ambitions.

I could have talked about any of those things, which were all of great benefit to the people of Gatineau. However, I want to focus on two or three of the innovative measures set out in this budget that I care about, both as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and as the member for Gatineau.

This budget implementation bill explores new opportunities for entrepreneurs. Gatineau is home to many construction companies and tradespeople. Every year, these people build houses and office buildings, thereby enabling the Government of Canada to continue its work through federal construction projects. We owe a great deal to the people of Gatineau who work hard and use their hands and their heads to help us build the infrastructure the Government of Canada needs.

This budget implementation bill will enshrine the prompt payment principles in law. We worked with some of our colleagues, including the member for Humber River—Black Creek, the member for King—Vaughan and many others, to follow the lead of some of the provinces, including Ontario, that have legislated to ensure that the contractors working on major construction projects, the subcontractors, the subcontractors' subcontractors and all those who are part of the supply chain get paid on time in accordance with the terms of their contract. That means that suppliers will be paid, materials will be paid for and everything will be done in a smooth and orderly fashion in accordance with the principles of justice, transparency and fairness. These are Canadian values, Liberal values, that I believe we should all support.

This is a major modernization in the management of our construction projects. This principle aims to ensure that a formal contract award process can be launched in the event that an agreement cannot be reached with the contractor. This very fast and inexpensive process will ensure that subcontractors, and by extension their employees, such as trades people and construction workers, for example, are paid in accordance with current standards and their contractual terms.

The Government of Canada is proud to be taking a leadership role. Public Services and Procurement Canada is now acting as an administrator. We have provided this leadership through a 14-point plan and the new legislative measure in the Liberal government's fourth budget. We are proud to be ensuring timely payments in the construction industry.

The second thing I want to discuss was also a very important issue of general interest to the riding of Gatineau, if not the entire national capital region. We have invested considerable sums in the Terrasses de la Chaudière complex, the Place du Portage complex, the Lester B. Pearson building and all the Parliament buildings, for example. We are making significant investments to repair and upgrade our institutions and federal buildings. We are doing so as a sign of respect not only towards the machinery of government, but also, of course, towards those who work in it.

I was proud to launch the new concept of “co-working”, which involves making offices available in the suburbs, in Orléans or at Place de la Cité in my own riding of Gatineau. There will be offices where employees of certain departments will be able to work if their child has a dentist appointment, for example. They can work closer to home that day. This is another show of respect and another investment in our infrastructure.

The Government of Canada is stepping up. My colleagues in the House may think it is not necessarily a good political move for the government to invest in its own offices. However, it is very important for the government and for the public service in the national capital region.

Since Confederation, the Government of Canada has also had the solemn responsibility of ensuring that Canadians are able to travel between both sides of the Ottawa River. We have five bridges, including the most recent one built in 1973. At the time there were 650,000 people in the entire national capital region. Now there are nearly 1.5 million people, and not a single lane has been added since 1973.

The City of Ottawa and the City of Gatineau have plans to invest in public transit. These are necessary investments and the Government of Canada will help with traffic flow by investing more than $80 million in the renovation of the bridges that are in service. The Alexandra Bridge will be replaced. What is of most interest to the people of Gatineau is the construction of a sixth crossing between Gatineau and Ottawa in the east end.

We will update the pertinent data and work with our partners. I have committed to being the champion of this new bridge. I believe I have really helped advance this project, but the work is not done. There is more to do, and we must continue to advocate for this project. I want to reassure those watching that we have made considerable progress. I invite them to continue supporting our efforts so that we can build a sixth crossing in the national capital region.

We will continue to invest in our public services, our public servants and our government. In the national capital region, we are honoured to be part of the effort to build the best country on earth, Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's comments about the Canada summer jobs initiative and about increasing the number of students and so on. While we are grateful for that, what he did not say is where the money is coming from. We now have a $20-billion deficit added to the previous deficits. We are borrowing money, paying huge amounts in interest to pay for student summer jobs.

Does the member realize that the current debt is costing Canadians over $26 billion every year in interest payments alone? How can he justify using borrowed money to pay students who, when they graduate and when they have children, will have to pay back these huge debts and all of the accumulated interest as well?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rather shocked and surprised. The member may be surprised to realize that we have one thing in common: We both come from an area that graduates a heck of a lot of students. There are two universities, maybe a college, in the Kitchener-Waterloo area. Certainly in the Ottawa-Gatineau area there are l'UQO, Ottawa University, Saint Paul and Carleton, of course. We are very proud of our institutions of higher learning.

These students require these investments in summer jobs. These students require the first start that these grants to employers and other public institutions give. After his party left us an environmental debt of $150 billion in borrowed money, I am very shocked to hear the member now question the money we are investing to make sure young people continue to contribute to this country. I am very surprised at that.

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

Mr. Speaker, since my colleague talked about something other than Bill C-97, I will do the same and talk about something that he must have forgotten in his speech, and that is the problems with the Phoenix pay system, which affect so many people in his riding.

This topic is fresh on the minds of public servants in Sherbrooke, and that must be the case in his riding as well. The unions are still very angry with the government for making nice promises that it did not keep. The problems with the Phoenix pay system persist and are getting worse over time. My colleague is well aware of that, since he is in charge of this government file. He did not keep his promises.

Two budgets ago, the Liberals announced the end of the Phoenix pay system. Today, as we speak, in June 2019, Phoenix is still the pay system being used by the federal public service.

In 2015, he made a promise, but he failed to fulfill that promise before the end of his term. He is asking his constituents to put their trust in him again. He thinks that this time he will fix the problem. I wonder what message that sends to public servants, the public service and the people of his riding.

What does he say to his constituents who are fed up and disappointed with his performance within the Liberal government?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, of course our hearts go out to all the public servants who are still having problems with the Phoenix pay system.

I can assure my hon. colleague that we have rebuilt capacity within government by hiring about 1,000 compensation advisors. We have invested hundreds of millions of dollars. That is an indication of just how poorly planned the botched system we inherited from the Conservatives was. It was a total fiasco. They saved money and balanced their budget by firing some 700 compensation advisors, but none of that savings was real, and it ended up costing public servants dearly. They cut so many corners with the supplier that the Phoenix pay system could not function as required and staff did not get the training they needed to do the job properly. At the same time, they took away the old system. We did not have a choice between the old system and the new system. We had a choice between Phoenix and no pay system.

We promised to deliver a new pay system that meets public servants' needs and expectations, and that is what we are going to do. Pilot projects are launching this fall. We are making the necessary investments. In the meantime, we have one-third fewer outstanding transactions than we had last year. We will not rest until all the outstanding transactions have been processed and we can be sure that our public servants are being paid accurately and on time.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver East, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship; the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, Poverty; the hon. member for Drummond, Social Development.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to be standing in this place to give my thoughts on the bill that is before us. It is unfortunate that with yet another omnibus bill, one that clocks in at almost 400 pages, we are unfortunately having to debate this bill under the yoke of time allocation, which was moved earlier this morning. I believe this gives us five hours for report stage and five hours for third reading for a bill of this magnitude.

This is the fourth Liberal budget I have had to sit through. I was one of those members who were elected in 2015 and have served the entire duration thus far. I have noticed two things with respect to the Liberals and their budgets. They like to always repeat two things. Number one is that they were the ones who brought in a middle-class tax cut, and number two is that they are lifting all of these children out of poverty with the child benefit. Let me address the first one before the government House leader cheers too loudly on that front.

I want to point out two facts. Number one is that in 2017, according to Statistics Canada, the average income in Canada was $46,700, and the median income was $35,000. Now the Liberals are claiming this as a middle-class tax cut, when in fact it is actually the middle-income tax bracket cut, which they lowered by 1.5%. This is very important, because they keep on perpetuating this basic thing. The middle-income tax bracket starts at $46,000 and goes up to $93,000. This means that this benefit is not going to help the average Canadian. I can also clearly speak for most of my constituents. They do not have incomes that go into that range, or if they do, they are getting maybe the first amount.

What the Liberals did, however, by giving that tax cut for that bracket was give themselves all the maximum tax cut of about $675,000, because a member of Parliament's salary allows the member to command the full benefits of that tax cut, when most Canadians, as evidenced by Statistics Canada, are not in fact benefiting from that tax cut. I have spent almost four years in this place listening to Liberals talk about that, and the evidence does not back them up. It is not the middle class. It is a middle-income tax cut of 1.5%, and the wealthiest of Canadians under $200,000 of income are the ones who benefited the most. Let us get that out of the way.

The other thing is with the child benefit. I will give it to the Liberals that for a lot of families it was absolutely great to see an increase to child benefits. There is a big “however” to that. When I go door knocking in my riding, especially in the south end, in Langford, which is populated by a lot of young families, the biggest concern they have is with the availability and affordability of child care. There are simply not enough spaces. Yes, it is nice to get that bump up in child benefits, but if the primary caregiver, whether it be one partner or the other, wants to go out and get a second job, it is actually the lack of availability of spaces that is really holding that parent back.

Furthermore, I talk to small businesses in the region that have three, four or five employees. When they lose one employee because that person is going on maternity leave, they are losing a huge part of their workforce. If small businesses could have that national child care system the NDP has been advocating, that would help them, because that employee could make a return to work in a timely manner, safe in the knowledge that his or her child has a space to go to. It makes economic sense, which is why we have had chambers of commerce talk about it.

As to this particular bill, I want to talk about some of the things that are missing. In British Columbia we have an opioid crisis, which has absolutely ravaged our province. I believe we lost 4,000 people across the country in 2017. It has been absolutely devastating, yet in this budget we do not see any further resources to help those front-line workers who are dealing with this. We do not see any move by the federal government to match the government of B.C. in declaring this a national emergency under the federal Emergencies Act, which would allow the federal government to deploy more resources.

Pharmacare was a missed opportunity. I brought this up during the Adjournment Proceedings debate last night, when I was following up on a question I had asked in February. It needs to be said again.

The Liberal Party first promised a national pharmacare system in 1997, 22 years ago. The Liberals have had the benefit of having had majority governments in 1993, 1997, 2000 and again in this mandate, the 2015 mandate. Here we are, at the very tail end of the Liberal government's majority mandate, and what do we have? We have an expert panel that will release more recommendations, which are probably going to be a repeat of what we all know, that a national pharmacare system would save Canadians money. We know it has to be comprehensive, universal and fully public. It is the missing part of our national medicare system.

The Liberal government likes to make a great big deal about its national housing strategy, but when we look at the numbers, the lion's share of the money actually starts flowing after the next federal election. I appreciate that the Liberals keep on getting up and talking about all the things that are coming. I have dug into the numbers in my riding. A lot of the funding announcements are actually federal funding that was already in place before the national housing strategy.

If the Liberals want to raise the issue, I have the phone number for Mayor Stew Young of the City of Langford, one of the fastest growing municipalities in all of British Columbia, if not Canada. He could tell them where the federal government has been. MIA is what he will say.

I have a lot of students in my area. My riding is home to Royal Roads University. We have Vancouver Island University, the Cowichan campus. Of course not too far away, we have the great University of Victoria, which is where I attended school.

The price of tuition has gone up considerably since I went to university. I remember I thought it was fairly high back in my day. However, these days I look at the costs that students are paying, the debt they are being saddled with and the fact that the federal government is still collecting interest off that debt.

When a person gets into their late 20s and early 30, those are supposed to be the most productive years of their lives. We are asking them to start a family, start that new job. However, if they are saddled with that crushing debt and having to pay interest on it, interest which the federal government is collecting, that is a missed opportunity. I do not know why we are profiting off this crushing student debt. That opportunity was missed. I certainly hope that the students who are intending to vote take note of that and take note of where the different political parties stand on that issue.

I will end with the total missed opportunity that comes with the federal government's continued subsidies on oil and gas. This was a clear Liberal promise on which they have failed to deliver. We can look at the billions of dollars go into an industry, which we know we have to start levelling off if we are to meet our climate targets. We have a carbon budget. We are not meeting it.

For people who complain about the cost of doing so or the cost of transition, I would ask them to look at the forecast for the wildfire budget in British Columbia for this year. What will the costs be of mitigating and adapting to climate change? What about the billions of dollars we will to have to spend to help people when their homes are flooded out, when their farms are burned or when they cannot even produce a crop because of successive droughts and/or floods.

These costs are coming our way and they are going to be momentous. They are going dwarf to anything. The fact is that the government is continuing to subsidize this industry when the new economy of the future, the renewable energy economy of the future is the one that is growing. It is the one where the jobs are and it is the one demanding the skill sets of many of our oil and gas workers.

We need to stop subsidizing oil and gas. We need to put our money in the economy of the future. This is a missed opportunity to proclaim loudly that in 2019 we understand the science, that we know the deadline we were working against and that we absolutely must honour not only the present but our children's future by making that transition. It will require a Herculean effort. Unfortunately, what I have seen thus far is not matching the reality in which we live.

With that, I will be voting against Bill C-97. Again, it is full of missed opportunities. We could have done so much better.

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

Mr. Speaker, as has been pointed out in this chamber many times, the member and his colleagues ran on a solemn vow to balance the budget at all costs and made some extravagant promises. We knew the NDP would not keep that commitment.

We know that every time members of New Democratic Party stand in the House and say that we are not going far enough on this or we are not spending enough on that, they know very well that they would not have been able to do as much as this government has done, whether it is in child poverty, the environment, economic development, or on giving the middle class a tax break. None of those things would have been possible under an NDP platform.

It has been four years and the NDP has never furnished us with a proper explanation. Why does he espouse these views now when he ran on a pledge that would have prevented him from accomplishing any of that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will paraphrase a quote, that generals who fight the last war are doomed to lose the next one. If the hon. member wants to rehash what went on in the 2015 election, that is fine, I will entertain his wish.

What he is neglecting to say is the source of revenue the government has consistently neglected to go after. The Liberals are putting policies in place for the upper 1% by not going after tax cheats, tax dodgers and tax havens. That is where it can find the revenue.

Furthermore, if the government had put in a national child care system by making those investments and allowing more parents to enter the workforce, who can then pay income tax, it would have found the additional revenue.

I did run under that platform. We were proud to support it. However, the member is neglecting to tell the other half of the story. The Liberals consistently do this when they bring the issue up in the House of Commons. I would remind the hon. member that it is 2019.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford has pointed out that the Liberals are now trying to hold the NDP to its electoral promises, when they break so many of their own. It is quite funny.

Bill C-97, the omnibus legislation, includes a few things on which both of our ridings would agree, although we probably would want to have some discussions on them.

The first is that the Canadian Credit Union Association was promised two red tape reduction measures in the budget. There is only one in it. What does the member think about that?

Second, instead of actively campaigning to work with provincial premiers to open up the wines of his region and my region, the federal government is abdicating completely. It has eliminated any reference in the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act in the omnibus bill. Then they are trying to sell it like they are somehow opening up opportunities. Really what they are doing is abdicating the field. What does the member think about that part and what do these things mean for his riding?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a been a proud member of a credit union for a number of years, simply because I find it is more responsive to the needs of local communities. Credit unions have local representation. They are involved in this. They make those investments that really matter. They have democratic control over how policies are made.

I would love nothing more than for the House of Commons to enjoy the fine wines of the Cowichan region, whether it is Emandare, or Averill Creek or a whole host of others. I know our two regions are certainly big wine producing regions in British Columbia. I wish people in other provinces could enjoy the fruits of labour of the incredible farmers we both have.

Yes, there are missed opportunities. I am glad the member highlighted those facts. It is important to remind Canadians of what we could have achieved with this opportunity in the dying days of the 42nd Parliament.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-97, the budget implementation act.

The bill would help bring the proposal outlined in budget 2019 to life and help improve the lives of Canadians, including my constituents in Brampton West.

For the past four years, I have had the opportunity to speak to many pieces of legislation in the House and provide my voice on how our government's policies would improve the lives of my constituents in Brampton West. Budget 2019 is the accumulation of four years of making Canada a better place to live for all Canadians.

Let me talk about the current economic situation.

First and foremost, for the last three and a half years, Canada's economy has been booming. We have been investing in our middle class. One of the first things we did was cut taxes for the middle class. We introduced initiatives like the Canada child benefit. We are putting more money in the hands of those who need it the most. With that, we have created an environment of growth.

Since November 2015, under the leadership of our Prime Minister and the finance minister, Canadians have created over one million jobs. One million more families are better off than they were before. If we compare our record, that is one million more jobs created in the last three and a half years than the Harper Conservatives could do in 10 years. The majority of these jobs are full-time. The unemployment level is the lowest it has been in decades. We have lifted more than 300,000 children out of poverty. A typical Canadian family is $2,000 better off under our plan than it was under the Stephen Harper plan back in 2015. That is real change, and we know our plan is working.

While it is important to celebrate the milestones that we have achieved, it is also important to acknowledge that a lot of work needs to be done.

Today in Canada, especially where my constituents live in Brampton West, once affordable properties are now out of reach due to high demand. Therefore, in budget 2016 and in budget 2017, we established Canada's first-ever housing strategy that would invest $40 billion over 10 years to build and repair affordable housing units. This gives future homeowners greater options when looking at the housing market and makes housing accessible to more people than ever before.

In budget 2019, we are taking another step to support first-time homebuyers, including new immigrant families in Brampton West. To help make home ownership more affordable for first-time homebuyers, budget 2019 introduces the first-time homebuyer incentive. This incentive would allow eligible first-time homebuyers, who have the minimum down payment of an insured mortgage, to finance a portion of their home purchase through a shared equity mortgage with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

Budget 2019 also proposes to increase the homebuyers plan withdrawal limit from $25,000 to $35,000, providing first-time homebuyers greater access to their registered retirement savings plan to buy a home. I know this initiative will benefit many young families in Brampton West looking to purchase a home or a condo. It gives them the option to put more money down by accessing a larger portion of their savings and helps them deal with the cost of living by lowering their monthly mortgage payments.

I would like to talk a bit about our health care.

Our health system is one of which Canadians are extremely proud. We all recognize that it is one of the best systems in the world. From my background as a registered nurse, I have seen the impact it has not just in our communities, but in hospitals. We also recognize that the cost of prescription medication is a significant barrier to many Canadians to get the treatment they need. No Canadian should have to choose between paying for a prescription and putting food on the table or going without needed medication simply because he or she cannot afford it.

To address these challenges, budget 2019 announces steps to move forward with a national pharmacare program. This is very important to my constituents in Brampton West. We have been advocating for this with the government and in my previous role as parliamentary secretary to the minister of health.

We are establishing the Canadian drug agency. This new national drug agency would build on existing provincial and territorial successes and take a coordinated approach to assessing effectiveness and negotiating prescription drug prices on behalf of Canadians. Negotiating better prices could help lower the cost of prescription drugs for Canadians up to $3 billion per year in the long term. The extra savings would mean more money going to my constituents and more investments in Canadians.

We are also creating a national formulary, a comprehensive, evidence-based list of prescribed drugs, to be developed as part of the Canadian drug agency. This would provide the basis for a consistent approach to formulary listing and patient access across the country. It would set out a clear path toward a national pharmacare program.

In addition to these essential steps, we are introducing a national strategy for high-cost drugs for rare diseases, to help Canadians get better access to the effective treatments they need.

These changes will put the foundation in place as we wait to hear from the advisory council later this year on the implementation of national pharmacare.

This budget provides more money directly to the communities and municipalities that need it. Through a doubling of the gas tax fund infrastructure top-up, our government will be transferring more money directly to municipalities so they can fund projects that are important to their communities.

It is unfortunate that the provincial government in Ontario is impeding the flow of federal dollars to our municipalities. This has been having a tremendous effect in my community in Brampton.

We are working directly with our municipalities to ensure that essential projects move forward. I am proud to be part of a government that is working with municipalities on behalf of Canadians and delivering for them.

Brampton will be receiving close to $50 million through this fund so that it can invest in services that Bramptonians rely on most, such as public transportation, recreation centres and our parks.

We have seen what is happening in Ontario. While the provincial Conservative government is failing and continuing to make cuts on the backs of Canadians, our government continues to deliver for Canadians.

Our government is also thinking forward by investing in the new frontier for our safety. That frontier is cybersecurity. Digital technologies are increasingly knitted into the lives of Canadians, so in order to protect our information, we need a plan. Canada's skilled workforce and world-class universities can help us become leaders in cybersecurity research and development.

To promote collaboration among Canadian cybersecurity centres of expertise, budget 2019 proposes to provide $80 million over four years to support Canadian cybersecurity networks across Canada that are affiliated with post-secondary institutions. The funding proposed in budget 2019 would mean that institutions like the Ryerson University cybersecurity centre in Brampton will get the funding they need to create well-paying jobs and solidify our cybersecurity infrastructure.

This cybersecurity centre was part of a project by Ryerson University to establish a full satellite campus in Brampton, something the Brampton community and all members from Brampton advocated for years. The campus would have provided a post-secondary education experience for young Bramptonians closer to home. It would have created jobs and attracted new talent to Brampton. The project was unfortunately, once again, gutted by the current provincial Conservative government.

Where it made cuts to our health care, education and communities, we will continue to invest in and for Bramptonians and make those investments.

Canadians are among the most skilled and highly educated workers in the world. However, today the evolving nature of work means that people may change jobs many times over the course of their working lives or may require new skills to keep their jobs in a changing economy.

That is why we are providing Canadians with a tool called the Canada training benefit. This program would help provide more choices for my constituents so they can find the jobs they need to be successful in fulfilling their careers, while also not endangering their current employment.

The changes we have brought forward over the last four years and the changes included in this budget make me extremely proud of our government, which recognizes the importance of investing in the middle class. I hope to be part of this truly progressive government over the years so we can continue to bring real change and keep bringing investments into Brampton so our constituents can continue to thrive, not just in Brampton but in communities all across Canada.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on the first-time homebuyer incentive, the shared equity mortgage program, I looked up Brampton and I could find only 98 listings that would qualify for this particular initiative, because it caps at $120,000, the maximum price of the home is $480,000, and it is 5% down on a previous property or 10% down on a new one. When we make the calculation, the officials at CMHC could not tell me where they got the 100,000 from, and it does not offset the impact of the B-20 stress test. In fact, I asked every single organization involved in real estate, whether on construction sites, realtors or brokers, and they all said that it would not offset the impact of the B-20 stress test, which has seen, in one year, 33% of first-time homebuyers drop out of the market. It is a punishing decision by the government to insist on continuing with the B-20 stress test.

How can the member support a government policy that would not achieve any of the goals and, instead, would throw away $1.25 billion, when there is an easier, simpler and cheaper solution?

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my remarks, everyone needs a safe and affordable place to call home, yet too many Canadians are being priced out of the housing market.

For 10 years, the Conservatives, such as the Leader of the Opposition, did absolutely nothing to address this issue, whereas we have actually invested $40 billion in the national housing strategy. In Brampton alone, just two weeks ago, we announced 89 affordable housing units through the national housing strategy. With this budget, particularly with the first-time homebuyer incentive, we are making home ownership more affordable for first-time homebuyers, like the ones in my community.

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

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the difference between the Liberal Party of Canada, which my colleague is a member of, and the New Democratic Party, could not have been any clearer.

The NDP announced an ambitious plan to transition to green energy and a green economy. The estimated cost of this transition is $15 billion. This announcement, made in Montreal by our leader, is only the beginning.

The Liberals already have plans to invest these $15 billion into a pipeline project that has already cost Canadian taxpayers $4.5 billion. If the expansion goes ahead and a second pipeline is built, the government will spend an additional $10 billion. We are talking about approximately $15 billion for a pipeline that transports dilbit from the oil sands.

What does my colleague tell her constituents who care about the environment? Which plan should they choose, the one that invests $15 billion into the energy transition or the one that gives the fossil fuel industry $15 billion?

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the member, as we sat on the finance committee together, but it is hard to take New Democrats seriously. They have flip-flopped on so many issues. They wanted to balance the budget at all costs on the backs of Canadians in 2015. They voted against the Canada child benefit and the middle-class tax cut. They say one thing and do another.

Our plan for the environment has been very clear. We are putting a price on pollution and investing in public transit. Those are things that matter to my constituents. I am extremely proud of what we have been able to do, and I am really looking forward to what we will be able to achieve in the coming years.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for touching on so many things in a short period of time, but she really got my attention when talking about training people in new technologies as workforces change. She was a nurse and my wife was a nurse. My wife saw a lot of change over the years, going to the metric system and the new technologies in nursing. Could the member comment on how this could help health care in Canada?

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for all the work he does on behalf of his constituents, and to thank his wife as well, who served as a nurse.

With this budget, we introduced the Canada training credit. This would help working Canadians get the skills they need to succeed in the changing world. This is a new tool that would help working Canadians find the time and money to upgrade their skills and progress in their careers.

This is extremely important for health care. We are moving in such a way that people need more training. The digital economy is here, and we need to be innovative in everything we do, which is exactly why we are ensuring that people are prepared for the new skills of the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-97, an honour but also a concern.

It is also an honour and a privilege to bring the concerns of my constituents of North Okanagan—Shuswap to this House and debate them as their member of Parliament. Perhaps the greatest honour I have ever known, aside from being blessed with a loving wife and becoming a parent, is to represent the people who have entrusted me to carry their issues and best interests forward, on their behalf and for the good of Canada.

We all come to this place with the intention of representing our ridings and the great people in them, and some of us are very successful at it. What I have seen over the last three and a half years is a government and a Prime Minister who have strayed away from representing the people. The Liberals have put in place a bureaucracy and a larger government with priorities far ahead of what the average Canadian's needs are. The most glaring example of that is the government's out-of-control spending, the lavish sense of entitlement of the Prime Minister and the ballooning budgets that we see year after year after year.

Bill C-97 is an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019. It is 396 pages, which is not a massive omnibus bill, but it is massive in its own right. This budget adds almost another $20 billion in deficit. This has been happening for multiple years now, with the government and its out-of-control spending.

Most people have difficulty envisioning what $20 billion would look like; a big $20-billion pile is very hard to envision. Most average Canadians cannot quite put that picture together. When I am talking to the good people in my riding of North Okanagan—Shuswap, I explain to them that the $20-billion increase to debt that the government seems to be putting forward every year works out to about $540 for every man, woman, child, veteran, senior and grandparent. It is another $540 per year, year after year after year, that the government is taking out of their pockets.

Then I ask people if they can envision what those dollars would look like in their hands and what they could do with that money in their pockets. That is when they start to get really angry, as they realize they could do far better with the dollars in their pockets rather than sending them to an out-of-control government with out-of-control spending habits. Then I also explain to them, especially those in the workforce, that they are actually on the hook for double that amount. It is over $1,000 for every working person, because only 50% of Canadians are employed full time and might be able to pay back some of this debt the government is piling on. That is when they get really upset and ask what we can do, and ask that we do everything we can to eliminate the out-of-control government and its out-of-control spending.

Average Canadians must base their lives on what they can earn, borrow and pay back within their working years. Average Canadians understand these principles. They strive to pay off their debts and provide a starter investment for their children or leave a bit of inheritance for their children or grandchildren, whatever that may be.

In contrast, we currently have a Liberal government that thinks nothing of spending beyond not just its means but the taxpayers' means. What it really comes down to is a government that is spending beyond the taxpayers' means right now and adding debt year after year after year.

This is a government that does not believe in setting aside anything for a rainy day. Instead of leaving something in the bank for future generations, it is passing on a massive debt load that current and future taxpayers will have to pay back.

On top of this increasing debt load the government is passing on, it has spent hundreds of millions of dollars offshore. Upon joining the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the government committed Canada to a roughly 1% share of the bank, worth about $256 million. This will all be spent over the next five years.

When I explain this to the good people back home in North Okanagan—Shuswap, they start to envision what that kind of money could have done back home. When I talk to people there, they think of the projects we talked about in the pre-budget consultations I do every year. I go around to every community, every first nation and the chambers of commerce to meet with their boards and ask what they would like to see in the budget. I compile all that information in a condensed, concise version and provide it in a letter to the finance minister well in advance of the annual budget each year. Unfortunately, what we see in return is not reflective of what average Canadians need.

The dollars being spent offshore in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank are going to build pipelines in China. They are going to build major projects overseas, but no Canadian operations will be involved in those projects. All that funding will simply go offshore rather than being used to put Canadians to work.

That really upsets the people back home when I tell them. They have requested funding and support for youth space in their small communities, such as in the village of Chase, so that their youth can have a place to be active rather than out on the street. The Sicamous community has put forward the idea of a joint project involving the community and the local first nation band, the Splatsin. They can see what these projects can do for the community and they can see the revenue generation it could create. However, those funds are not there, partly because the government has decided to send them offshore.

I have seen requests from communities asking for help in purchasing emergency equipment or in upgrading their fire halls. Again, that funding is not available, because it has been sent offshore or has been spent to service the increasing debt, as we have heard in some of the speeches this afternoon. These are debt service costs from the increasing deficit the government continues to pile on.

I have also heard communities ask for a bit of a kick-start in developing economic plans. First nations bands and small communities have asked me about this. They want to know how they could possibly get some assistance and guidance in putting an economic plan together. Again, the money is not available, because it was spent elsewhere.

We have heard much talk about the mortgage stress test. I hear a lot back home about the shortage of affordable housing. I use the term “housing that is affordable”. The term “affordable housing” rings to most people as low-income, income-assisted or payment-assisted housing. However, it is housing that is affordable at all levels that we need. I believe that it is not just in my community but right across the country. For every chance we have to move someone into a first home or into a retirement home or into a rental home, an opportunity is opened up for someone else.

Those are the kinds of things I see average Canadians in my riding asking for.

They are asking for things like highway improvements. They are asking for things like electrification for the small community of Seymour Arm, which is currently off the grid and using diesel generation to power the community. These kinds of things would really help small communities move forward and get together, but the funds are not available, because the current government is deciding to use them on lavish vacations or offshore spending or for servicing the debt.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member's speech, and indeed, fiscal responsibility should always be a guiding principle in public administration. However, it is also responsible and forward-looking to make investments for the future. As a matter of fact, when we talk about investing, we talk about a return at some time in the future.

I would like to ask the member a question regarding a project that is taking place in Montreal. It is a $6-billion project, to which the government is contributing $1.3 billion. This is a light rail system that will benefit future generations that have to take light rail to school. It will improve productivity in the future and bring about greater economic growth.

Should this project have been put on hold, awaiting the balancing of the budget, or is it a good investment for the future and for future generations?

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

Mr. Speaker, on those types of big projects, infrastructure projects here in Canada, I cannot disagree that they are worthwhile projects. However, when we have a government that is sending money offshore, building pipelines in China and spending $4.8 billion on a pipeline here in Canada but is refusing to move forward on the investment to expand that pipeline to build our Canadian economy, I say that we have a government that has failed.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we were talking about the Canada Infrastructure Bank, and one of our members on this side mentioned one project. We also have the GO Transit project in southern Ontario, with $2 billion in debt financing to open up GO. As well, we can think about what providing electric trains in our region is going to mean for the future of transportation in southern Ontario and within the member's riding. There has also been an investment in a seniors residence for indigenous seniors.

Would the hon. member not agree that investing in our future and investing in projects such as these is good for Canada and good for each of our communities?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is referring to some projects the Liberals have actually managed to get off the ground in Canada. However, the bigger project, the one that would really benefit western Canada, which seems to be ignored or just kicked down the road further and further, is the Trans Mountain pipeline.

When I did a survey of my constituents in my riding, I asked if they felt that projects like the Trans Mountain pipeline should move forward in the best interest of Canada. The response I got back was almost 80% supportive. I believe that 79.4% were supportive of that project, yet we have a government that has been here for almost four years and has failed to move that project one inch closer to the goal line.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made the comment that people cannot visualize what $1 billion is. Well, the Liberals this time around this year had a $20-billion deficit. They also had $20 billion in extra revenue because the world economy is doing so well. That is $40 billion they spent that they did not plan on and that no one planned on having. To put that in perspective, that is like giving one million Canadians a cheque for $40,000 and allowing them to sit at home doing nothing. If this is the Liberal idea of a job creation plan, I think we have to question that.

I would like to ask my colleague a very important question. If the Liberals continue to go down this route of deficit spending, which we have seen in Ontario, where Ontario became the worst sub-national government in the world, and these deficits become the taxes of the future and the cuts of the future, what does the member think will happen to our country? Will it be exactly what has happened to Ontario?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague on this side of the House for putting forward a question that is really relevant to what is happening here, which is increasing debt.

I come from a small business background, which many of the people in my riding of North Okanagan—Shuswap are from. They understand that small businesses can invest when times are good but need to put something away for those rainy days when times are not so good.

We know about global economic cycles, especially the North American economic cycle we go through about every eight to 12 years. Indications are that we are now coming to a cycle where we could be looking at a major slowdown. All the current government has done over the past four years of moderate economic growth is pile up so much debt that the cost, in a few years' time, if we have a slowdown, is going to be an increasing burden, and we are going to have no choice: We can either push the country further into debt, which is the absolute worst thing we can do, or try to find efficiencies in the way we manage government. The way the government is operating, it is harder—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook.

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

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand in the House tonight to speak to this important budget, budget 2019.

As members and Canadians know, the economy has been moving very quickly and successfully. Canadians have created over one million jobs since 2015, and over 110,000 jobs in the last month alone. That is extremely impressive.

We have also seen, with our investment of the Canada child benefit, that we lifted over 300,000 Canadians out of poverty. That is another very important signal of success that we have moved forward on for our economy. As well, we have seen and are seeing the lowest unemployment rate in 45 years. When we took office here, the unemployment rate was at 7.1%. It is now at 5.7% to 5.8%. That is a strong indication of how strong our economy is moving forward. That is because of the budgets and investments we have made over the last four years. This budget is a continuation of that philosophy.

I want to talk about veterans. As members know, I have the largest number of veterans in Nova Scotia and Nova Scotia has the highest number in the country per capita. We have made some big investments over the last three and a half years for veterans, of over $10 billion. Even in this budget, we have again made some major steps forward.

The first budget was on transition. We have been working hard to find a seamless approach with a joint committee between DND and Veterans Affairs. It is in place and we are seeing some very positive steps forward in that area. However, we were only focusing that transition on ill and disabled veterans. Now we have included, in this bill, non-ill veterans, which is another very important factor.

We have enhanced the education and training benefit for veterans, which is $40,000 for six years of service or $80,000 for 12 years. We have now added the reservists to the list of those who can benefit from those programs. Those are very big steps that the veterans community was asking for and that we were able to put forward.

The other investment is the veterans survivor fund. Prior to this budget, the benefits and pensions of veterans who got married after the age of 60 would not be moved over to their spouse or partner. We made sure that we would bring forward investments to correct that as well, which was another important ask from our veterans community.

There are also investments in the Juno Beach Centre. We are celebrating, on June 6, the 75th anniversary of D-Day. We want to remember the loss of over 14,000 Canadians during that important time.

That is just a quick run-through of some of the investments in the veterans sector. Let us talk about the young people in this country.

We need to make sure that we are helping those young individuals to move forward and we have included some major steps in this last budget. Regarding student loans, we know that if students get a job they have to make over $25,000. We talked about that in previous budgets. Now we are saying that they will pay a prime rate but will not have to pay the plus 3%, which was a big one. Also we said that there will be no interest on the loan and no payments for the first six months, which is a big change as well.

For first-time homebuyers, we have set up an opportunity for young people. If they are purchasing a home for $400,000, they would have to put 5% down, which would be $20,000, so their loan would be $380,000. However, with the shared-equity strategy that we have put in place, their loan now is $340,000 and that is major. That is a savings of $225 per month. If I run that through for 30 years, it is $81,000 that an individual would save. That is a very important investment, as members can note.

As for student summer jobs, when the Conservatives were in power the number of summer jobs was the lowest that had existed in this country. Now that we are in 2019, there is the greatest number of summer jobs. In my riding alone, there are 255 individuals who are going to or are working in those summer jobs. That is $770,000 invested in that portfolio for students in my riding. As members can see, it is a broad approach that we are bringing forward, a coordinated strategy.

Then, we have brought in some investments in the Canada training program, which is a very important new program. It is tax free and people can save up to $250 a year, $1,000 every four years, for upgrading. That is something that we did not have access to. All members in the House know that young people today will often change jobs. The technology is moving so rapidly that this training is essential. We also have a program where people can draw from EI during the four weeks they are attending upgrading courses, which is extremely important.

We need to talk about seniors. We know that by 2034, seniors will represent about 25% of Canadians. That is a very high number. In the Atlantic provinces, the number is even higher than that. We need to focus on seniors. My riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook in Nova Scotia had the highest increase between 2011 and 2016. The Conservatives were going to move the retirement age to 67 and we said that was unacceptable. Canadians who have worked up to the age of 65, if they so desire to retire, they should be able to retire in dignity. Therefore, we ensured that the age of retirement stayed at 65, which was a crucial investment.

We have made investments to the GIS, the guaranteed income supplement, in two areas. The first one is a big investment of approximately $950, which allowed 700,000 seniors to move above the poverty line. That was very important, as well.

On health care, pharmacare, we are going to move forward. We have had a committee study a national pharmacare program. We should be able to deliver that in the very near future. We have made some investments in the Canadian drug agency to lower the costs. A national dementia strategy is very important. I met with a group in Sackville last week, in my riding. Northwood is trying to open an adult day program for dementia patients. Again, that is very important as well.

I must also include some of the investments on reconciliation with indigenous peoples. We have eliminated over 80-some boil water advisories. We have promised that by 2021 there will be no more boil water advisories. There is an investment for indigenous peoples for entrepreneurship and economic development, and for start-ups and expansion for Métis small businesses. Those are big investments for indigenous people.

I would like to finish off, of course, with the African Nova Scotian community. We have made some major investments there as well. The black community is the oldest black intergenerational community in Canada. It has the biggest Black Cultural Centre in Canada. Two months ago, the Prime Minister was in the Preston area. It was the first time a Prime Minister ever stepped into the Preston area.

There are some very successful initiatives that we are moving forward on. One is the anti-racism strategy investment, which will allow community-based focus groups to come forward with all kinds of different projects. There is also some capital investment, up to $25 million over five years, for projects and capital assistance to help the vibrant black community continue to grow.

I have to close with the trade deals. We have brought three trade deals to the table, successfully. That is 1.5 billion people trading in and out of Canada.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

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

The House resumed consideration of C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) 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 and address the House on the important issues we have to address. What is more important than the national budget? It is one of those measures that we can read a lot into, because it is the way the government establishes its priorities. From day one, this government has been very clear to the House, and through the House to all Canadians, and I would even reverse that by saying that through Canadians, we have been very clear to this House, what the intentions of this government are.

As I have referenced in the past, we have a Prime Minister who constantly challenges members of the Liberal caucus to stay connected with their constituents, the people we represent, and to bring their thoughts and ideas to the floor of the House, the standing committees and the caucus. I really believe that a lot of positive things have happened as a direct result.

Before I get to the core issues, I would like to use the example of pharmacare. On numerous occasions, I have had the opportunity to stand in my place and table petitions dealing with pharmacare. We know how passionate Canadians are about our health care system. It does not matter what region of the country we live in, health care is an important issue. As such, I have always taken it seriously, not only here in the House of Commons but also in the days when I was an MLA.

Under this Prime Minister, for the very first time in decades, we have seen an open mind toward a national pharmacare plan. I would argue that for the first time in decades, we have seen not only members of the government but also some opposition members talking more about a pharmacare plan. Virtually months after the last election, we saw the standing committee put meetings on its agenda to deal with pharmacare, which ultimately led to a report.

We have seen commitments within our budget measures to further the debate and dialogue on pharmacare. We have seen members of Parliament go into their constituencies and work with others.

I am very proud of the fact that my daughter Cindy has been very strong on this file and has been advocating for a national pharmacare plan on the floor of the Manitoba legislature. She recognizes, as I do, that this is an important issue for the residents of Winnipeg's north end and beyond.

If we listen to my caucus colleagues, they will talk about the importance of a national pharmacare plan. I think that embodies some of the things the Prime Minister has talked about, which is that as members of Parliament, it is important that we stay in touch with what our constituencies want and expect.

Let me suggest to members that it is one of the important issues on which I hope to see some tangible results in the coming days, weeks, months and, with the approval of my constituents, years. It is an issue I want the residents of Winnipeg North to understand. I will continue to advocate for it until we have some form of national pharmacare plan we can all be proud of, a plan that will complement the national Canada health care system we have.

Having said that, I want to talk about day one. I sat in the opposition benches a number of years ago when our current Prime Minister was elected leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

I thought it was significant that the day he made the announcement that he was interested in putting his name into the leadership race, he highlighted the importance of Canada's middle class. Nothing has changed. The then leadership candidate, who then became the leader of the Liberal Party and is now Canada's Prime Minister, has consistently indicated that Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be part of it are the first priority of this government and the Liberal Party.

He made that pledge in the last federal election. I believe that if we look at the budgetary measures we have taken since day one of getting into government, we will find example after example of what we have done as the government to further the interests of Canada's middle class.

If we look back at the beginning, and Bill C-2, we will see the tax cut for Canada's middle class. At the same time, we recognized the sense of tax fairness, and we saw a government that put an extra tax on Canada's one per cent, the wealthiest Canadians. The revenue generated from that, in good part, went to pay for the tax break for Canada's middle class.

I am very proud of the fact that we have seen a government that also wants to do what it can to deal with issues such as poverty. That is why we saw the enhancement of the tax-free Canada child benefit program, literally lifting tens of thousands of children, going into hundreds of thousands, out of poverty. Then we saw the guaranteed income supplement, which also lifted tens of thousands of Canadians out of poverty.

I want to combine the three of them and use it as a tangible example of this point. We took money and put it into the pockets of Canadians in every region of our country. We supported the middle class and those aspiring to be part of it, those who needed that helping hand, and we put money to work. I say that because if we invest in our middle class, we are really investing in Canada. The hundreds of millions, going into billions of dollars annually that we invested in Canadians ultimately assisted us in providing tangible results. It increased disposable income and, I would argue, helped create the one million jobs this government, working in co-operation with other stakeholders, has been able to generate in every region of this country.

In so many ways, we are the envy of the world because of the economic policies we have put in place. We have put money in the pockets of Canadians by investing in infrastructure. Even with this most recent budget, we are giving tens of millions of dollars. In the city of Winnipeg, just over $35 million is going into municipal infrastructure, creating jobs, building our country and investing in Canadians. That is what this government has been all about over the last three and a half years.

We have seen tangible results. This is why I am very happy and quite content. The summer is quickly approaching. We only have another 12 or 13 days left in this sitting. I look forward to a summer where we can reach out and tell Canadians what has been taking place in the last three and a half years.

Come October, when people do the comparisons, they will recognize and appreciate all the work we have been able to accomplish, working with Canadians day in and day out, working hard and delivering.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member brought up the government's Bill C-2, which was in fact the cut to the middle income bracket, not to the middle class.

I have had this exchange with the member several times now, probably more than several times over the past few months and year. The government offered a tax cut of over $800 to every member of Parliament in this Chamber. However, people who were earning $45,000 or less got nothing. They got carbon taxes and higher payroll taxes. They actually got less at the end of the month. People who were earning $60,000 a year, which is more than the median income, more than the average income a person would earn in Canada, got about a $260 tax cut.

The member keeps repeating that this was for the middle class, but in fact every member of Parliament received a much higher tax break. That is wrong. That is not the way this is supposed to work. We are not supposed to fill our pockets; we are supposed to help Canadians.

Will the member finally admit that the middle income tax cut was not for the middle class, that it did not achieve any of those goals? In fact, the numbers provided by the CRA show that the extra tax put on the so-called 1% did not generate the revenue the government thought it would, that we lost over $4 billion.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite focuses on one area with respect to the middle-class tax cut.

He talks about particular individuals who made x number of dollars. What about the hundreds of thousands of teachers, firefighters, factory workers and others who received that middle class tax cut? The bulk of that hundreds of millions of dollars went to those individuals. By investing in our middle class, we were able to increase disposable income. That meant they were able to visit the local restaurant, go to retail outlets and invest in our economy. By investing in the economy, by spending, it generated additional jobs.

The member and the Conservatives are off base. I think what it might be is a little remorse. At the end of the day, the Conservatives voted against the tax break for Canada's middle class.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member spent a long time preparing his speech and could not finish it. Therefore, I will not ask a question so can finish it. However, I will make a comment.

Some members heard me the other day in question period. I had a long list of things that the Minister of Finance had done for us in previous years. I want to add some of the things he has done in this budget, particularly for the north, on top of all of those things.

There were an additional $75 million for CanNor; an additional $50 million for the Yukon territorial government, which has to provide health care and education; $400 million out of the trade corridor fund just for the north, which is a higher percentage than the rest of Canada, sorry to the other members for that; and $26 million for the science building at Yukon College to help make it the first university in Canada north of 60. We are the only country in the world that did not have a university north of 60, but we now will. Finally, something no one in the House would have mentioned, but there was increased money for polar continental shelf project to do research in the arctic.

Finally, in the north, we benefited from a whole bunch of things as did everyone in Canada: the mineral exploration tax credit, extended for five years; increases for student loans; $150 million for cancer; $60 million for tourism; and increases in indigenous languages and new horizons for seniors.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

We are running out of time.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the first thing that comes to mind is how effective members within our caucus can be.

I know the member for Yukon. A member cannot be in the national Liberal caucus and not hear about Yukon. Yukon is an absolutely critical aspect in every way when it comes to caucus discussions. My friend and colleague from Yukon is very quick to remind all us of the importance of not neglecting Yukon. I suspect that is one of the reasons why the Prime Minister and many of us actively think about it.

One of the nice things about being part of a great team is that we get a sense of co-operation and better understanding of all the different areas of our country. All our members are strong advocates for their communities. No doubt that is one of the reasons the Minister of Finance finds things very challenging. We are constantly lobbying him in the best interests of all of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place to speak to Bill C-97, the budget implementation act.

I am profoundly concerned.

The federal budget is a government's opportunity to present its plan for the country and its economy. It is its opportunity to demonstrate to Canadians that true political leadership is the art of the possible.

It is concerning that rather than accomplish the possible things that could help Canadians prosper, the Liberal party refuses to recognize that more and more Canadians are just getting by and not getting ahead.

Canadians need budget measures that at least acknowledge their struggles and help provide them some relief from the escalating costs of day-to-day life, not ones that simply continue the Liberals' long history of tax-and-spend policies that instead hurt families, businesses and the sustainability of government programs on which people rely.

Again, in this budget, there is no plan. Instead, Canadians are getting tax increases that only make their situation worse.

There is no question that over the past four years Canadians have suffered under a Liberal government that misses opportunities, mortgages our children's futures, lacks a plan and neglects the needs of workers and families.

Let us talk about the concerns of the constituents I represent in Flamborough—Glanbrook and what they have been feeling as far as Liberal neglect is concerned.

In the greater city of Hamilton, thousands of Stelco workers and pensioners have been forced to deal with great uncertainty and have really struggled after the company moved into creditor protection on two different occasions, 2004 and 2014. These are Canadians who have or are at risk of losing their dream of a dignified retirement after decades of hard work.

What I have heard from every pensioner who has reached out to me on this issue is that he or she has serious concerns that the bankruptcy process puts investors ahead of pensioners.

Bankruptcies at Sears and Nortel over the years have resulted in similar dire circumstances for their pensioners. Thousands of Sears employees were out of work when the store closed in December 2017, yet there was no real pension protection for employees who had been there for 10, 20, 30 years or more.

A pension is deferred wages. That it is even possible to lose deferred wages is totally unacceptable.

The Liberals promised action years ago. More empty promises in this budget do not a plan make.

Our previous Conservative government took an important first step when we brought in changes that required companies to fulfill their pension obligations when they sought creditor protection. I am happy that change was made because it was a crucial first step toward protecting pensioners. However, there are many more steps to take. That was just the first and more needs to be done.

It is possible to make changes to our laws and regulations to improve protections for pensioners. The question becomes, what changes should be made and how do we make those changes? This is not a question to which one party has all the answers.

It is not my intention to over simplify the challenge before us. I remind my colleagues that political leadership is the art of the possible. Millions of Canadians rely on their pensions. This issue is too important to avoid action because the problem is too complex. Nor should members be divided down partisan lines. We have to make this change possible.

That is why, in 2017, I called upon the government to charge one of our parliamentary committees to review the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Companies' Creditor Arrangement Act and the Investment Canada Act. That was 18 months ago.

I strongly believe a parliamentary committee is the ideal place to begin. A parliamentary study allows members of all parties to examine important statutes and regulations and provide their input on the matter. In hearing from stakeholders, public servants, legal and industry experts, a committee study allows members to determine where exactly the issues are and what exactly is possible. All of the testimony would be a matter of public record, meaning that those arguing for and against changes would be subject to scrutiny, and rightfully so.

Committee members then have the opportunity to make recommendations to the government as to what problems need to be addressed and how they could be addressed.

Having previously chaired the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology and understanding the issues that come before it, that would make a lot of sense.

Unfortunately, when my Conservative colleagues brought forward a motion to begin such a study at committee, the Liberals voted it down. Instead of taking advantage of the power of a parliamentary committee, the Liberals blocked that study and made it clear that looking at new ways to protect pensioners was not a priority for the government. In the 18 months since, we have essentially heard nothing from the Liberals regarding pension protections. A lot could have been done by now if the Liberals had the will.

Ironically, in the latest budget, the Liberals committed to giving pensioners greater peace of mind by “enhancing retirement security”. Is this vague commitment what pensioners have been waiting for all these years? The Liberals are not prepared to take the very possible and meaningful steps to follow through on those words. While moves toward greater transparency in the process are all well and good, the budget falls far short of actually providing concrete protections for pensioners when their company files for creditor protection.

It is not just the official opposition that sees this legislation as woefully lacking. The Canadian Association of Retired Persons and the Canadian Federation of Pensioners agree that Bill C-97 falls well short.

When I met with the United Steelworkers a few weeks ago, they made it abundantly clear to me that this was their number one priority, because there are still workers and pensioners who are struggling, stressed out and concerned for their futures.

This issue should transcend partisan boundaries. My Conservative colleague, the hon. member for Durham, when he introduced Bill C-405 to begin making changes to better protect pensioners, said that “securing the retirement and pension security of Canadians is another time that we should work together on all sides of this House to bring certainty to hundreds of thousands of Canadians in their retirement.”

The hon. NDP member for Hamilton Mountain, who has offered his own private member's bill on pensions as well, referred to the issue as a “legislative crisis”.

Even the Liberal Minister of Seniors, who is also the member for a neighbour riding of mine, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, told the CBC that more study was needed on pensions. That begs the question: If the position of the Liberal government is that more study is needed, why did the Liberals vote down a Conservative motion to study pension protections at committee? I think Canadians deserve an answer to that question, and the government better have a reason that is better that petty partisanship. The financial security and safety of our retirees is far too important for that.

I reiterate my belief that a complete review of the legislation governing pensions and insolvency is needed, one that considers the perspectives of all stakeholders: workers, business leaders, industry experts, civil servants, bondholders, banks, and suppliers who, by the way, get victimized very regularly as well when a company goes out of business. Small suppliers who have a handful of employees are forced into bankruptcy and their employees lose their jobs because they are so far down the list as well. They should be part of the stakeholders who come before our committee, and so many others, who can give their testimony in regard to how bankruptcy should be handled and the priority in which the claims should be made. This is not and never will be an issue that only one party can solve on its own.

The Liberals did not want dialogue, and it is reflected in this bill because their proposals are not only inadequate but fail to even broach the crux of the issue. This is not an issue that can be meaningfully addressed in a massive omnibus budget bill. I implore the Liberal executive to allow committees to do what they do best. The issue requires an approach that allows members of all parties to take the time to have an in-depth debate on this specific issue without the looming threat of time allocation to get the budget through.

Pensioners work hard for decades to earn a dignified retirement. I am certain that my colleagues right here in the House, who are vested with a pension, would scream quite loudly if all of a sudden it was limited or taken away. The least we can do as elected representatives of Canadian workers and pensioners is to take the issue seriously and provide meaningful changes to protect them.

While we may not be able to make all stakeholders completely happy, it is possible to do much more and better for workers. Let us get this on the front burner now before another 18 months go by.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for taking up this topic, which is very important. It has always been a pet project of mine, and I totally agree with him that it needs to be studied and worked on.

The minister for science and industry has outlined in question period a number of steps that the government is working on and taking related to this. However, the member has obviously given more thought to this than most people. Obviously, a study would be great and we would get all those opinions.

Could he give one or two ideas of his own, which he has already thought of because he has thought so much about this, that might help us in a program to help protect the pensions of existing pensioners?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the question. It was given in the spirit of collegiality, and I appreciate that because this issue is so complex.

There are a number of things we could do, which is why we need to get everybody at the table. Bondholders will have a real problem with the security of the funds they have invested in the company and will want to make sure they can get their investment out. Banks are going to come to the table and will be concerned about the fact that their liability is going to be increased if they are not right at the top of the list. They will make claims, as they have to probably many members here, that they will have to charge more for credit and that maybe even credit will not be as accessible because their liability will increase for any new measures that might take place.

The reason I said the first step should be that we have very clear and concise testimony is that the general public needs to know where everybody stands. It is why in my speech I said that for those who would argue for and against, the public would clearly see what the issues were. They would see whether people were strong-arming brinkmanship to try to keep things status quo or if there was a reasonable effort to come to some kind of compromise to make sure those deferred wages that people sometimes wait a decade or two or three for are actually honoured.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my colleague. I received a message from Linda Nickerson of Parksville. Her husband has been sick with diabetes and medicine prices have been going up. Linda planned well for her retirement. She invested appropriately and so did her husband. Medicine costs have gone through the roof.

They have sold their house and downsized to a trailer, and they are still having a tough time making ends meet living on just CPP and OAS. They are calling for the government to invest in a national pharmacare plan so that they can survive. They are not sure what they will be able to do next, because the costs are going through the roof when it comes to the medicine.

The Liberal government keeps making promises that it will deliver a national pharmacare plan. In fact, it was in its red book in 1993, and now it is talking about making progress. The deputy House leader today talked about the government making progress, but we still have not seen a national pharmacare plan delivered.

Does my colleague and the Conservatives support a national pharmacare plan so that people like Linda Nickerson, her husband and her family are able to buy the medicine they need?

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

Mr. Speaker, my own sister had C. difficile and was at death's door at one time. She needed an experimental drug that cost $5,500 per dose. She was fortunate that the drug company gave her special access to it, but it could have gone the other way, so I absolutely agree with my colleague.

I want to take the opportunity just to say one more thing. Since I have been elected, this House has not taken advantage of the power of committees. One of the things we could do on a pharmacare program would be to call all the provincial health ministers before a parliamentary committee and get the input from the provinces that actually deliver health care. Some of the provinces have a drug plan. It would help us make sure we come up with a way that no one would fall through the cracks, one which was fiscally responsible and made sure every dollar was spent well and went to those people who needed the help. It would be an excellent way for a committee to work and bring about a plan that would be beneficial, would not encroach on provincial jurisdictions and at the same time, would make sure all Canadians have access to the drugs they need to stay healthy.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment, as a first-term parliamentarian, to thank each of the hon. members who shared their remarks with us this evening, at the end of their distinguished parliamentary careers. There were many life lessons in those comments. There were many words of wisdom, a few funny stories and indeed things that I hope to be able to reflect on and learn from with multiple mandates in this chamber. However, as members know, that is up to our residents so I look forward to a vigorous campaign this summer and into the fall.

It is the great honour of my life to serve in this chamber and to represent the residents of Edmonton Centre. Therefore, tonight I would like to share my reflections on Bill C-97 and, more particularly, how this 2019 budget says very clearly that our government, budget 2019 and I are here for Edmonton.

I want to start with those people who paved the way for us. I want to start with the seniors and to acknowledge the tremendous sacrifice that seniors have made to build up our communities, to build up our country and, in my case, to build up the city of Edmonton. I honour and respect the wealth of knowledge that they carry with them and the experience and the skills that they continue to contribute and that we want to see them contributing today.

In budget 2019, we recognize the contribution that seniors have made to Canada and we are returning the favour by investing in them. Budget 2019 would help to support their active participation in society, including through work, and would smooth the transition to retirement for seniors when they choose to leave the workforce. I have seen the very good work that the horizons program for seniors has done to reduce social isolation.

I can see the work that we have done to make sure that seniors are able to retain more of the income they now spend. Seniors asked me at the doors why we were clawing back some of the money that they make when they go to work at the Walmart or their kids' school. They asked why we were taking some of that money and we listened. The Minister of Employment, the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development and the Minister of Seniors were very clear. Now seniors will not pay tax on the first $5,000, it is not going to be clawed back from their GIS and 50% of the next $10,000 will also be exempt. That is $7,500 on the $15,000 that seniors make that will now be in their pockets.

Unfortunately, some seniors are penalized. When they try to keep working, they see significant cuts to their benefits. That is why we listened to seniors and changed the program.

As I mentioned, that is why we are making changes to the GIS allowance benefit. It would begin in the July 2020 to July 2021 benefit year.

Our government respects seniors. Seniors are respected in the budget. We listened to them and we took action.

On innovation and jobs, our government and I are building, together with western Canadians, a strong and competitive west by focusing on business development, innovation and community development. We have pledged to do that by increasing support to Western Economic Diversification Canada with a $100-million increase over three years to increase its programming across western Canada. That means more jobs and more investment in companies. It means more companies will be able to scale up in Edmonton, in Red Deer, in Calgary and across the west.

We have also provided $100 million to the Clean Resource Innovation Network that will help make Alberta's oil and gas even greener and even cleaner.

As members know, when tragedy strikes every second counts, and that makes helicopters an indispensable tool for getting people the care they need quickly and efficiently, which is especially true across such a vast region as western Canada. Since 1985, STARS air ambulance, known as Shock Trauma Air Rescue Service, has provided rapid and specialized emergency helicopter ambulance service to patients who are critically ill or injured in communities across Manitoba, British Columbia and Alberta.

STARS has contributed to saving hundreds of lives and it has helped all of us in some of the worst tragedies: helping after the Pine Lake tornado in July 1999; saving people during the floods of Calgary in 2013; providing transportation away from the fires that swept through Fort McMurray in 2016; and, when the nation's heart sank at the Humboldt crash, helping get those survivors to safety.

Our government recognizes the vital role that STARS plays in delivering access to emergency care for the communities it serves. Our budget will put five new emergency medical helicopters in the air, with a $65-million allocation in budget 2019, making sure that STARS can renew half of its aging fleet and continue its life-saving work.

One of the key aspects of this budget, and even this government, is the hard work we do on behalf of all Canadians, including LGBTQ2 Canadians.

All Canadians deserve our respect, and that includes LGBTQ2 Canadians. That is why I am so delighted to state that in budget 2019 we have included, for the first time in the history of this country, an allocation of $20 million over two years for capacity-building and community-level work for LGBTQ2 service organizations in Canada. This means that community-based organizations that have been shut out and not able to apply to the federal government for anything, ever, will now have that opportunity, starting later this summer and into the new year.

I want to pause and thank the Minister of Finance and member of Parliament for Toronto Centre and his team for this historic investment in budget 2019. It did not have to be there, but it is there. I want to thank the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and MP for Peterborough—Kawartha and her team, because that is the department that will flow the money. I want to thank the LGBTQ2 Secretariat that resides in the Privy Council Office. Without its steadfast work, without its coordination, this would not be possible. I want to thank my own team. To each of them, I want to say that they have made history and they will change and save lives.

Why is the pan-Canadian suicide prevention service, money that we put aside for the national suicide prevention line, so important? It is $25 million over five years.

Earlier today, I was at something called Children First. It was a luncheon and colleagues from the other side of the aisle were also there. We each got paired up with a young person, and I was paired up with 11-year-old Ethan from PETES, an elementary school. We started chatting, in front of a hundred of his colleagues. I asked him what he likes to do. He said he was a video games guy; he likes to play, draw and dance. Then I asked him, “When you talk with your friends, what are some of the big things you want adults to fix?” He looked me straight in the eye and said, “Can you stop bullying? Can you stop people from hurting other people?” I asked if he knew someone who was bullied, and he said he was. It scared him. It ruined his life, and he was quiet for way too long. He became really depressed and had suicidal thoughts. This is an 11-year-old kid who was opening up to me in front of a hundred people at a luncheon today. He asked if we can do something to keep more kids safe.

He wanted to make sure that people would listen. He was not sure that if he told an adult, somebody would listen. The people we will employ on this pan-Canadian suicide prevention hotline will listen to people like Ethan, and that is why budget 2019 is going to make a difference in the lives of so many Canadians.

Turning to another pressing issue in Edmonton Centre, it is important that we do better for, with and by indigenous people, particularly urban indigenous communities. About 60% of indigenous people in Canada live in an urban setting, and Edmonton is home to Canada's second-largest indigenous population. That makes indigenous supports in urban settings a priority for me and for our government. We are investing in safe and culturally relevant community spaces, with $60 million over five years to support capital infrastructure in friendship centres.

With budget 2019, our government is on track to end boil water advisories in Canada by 2021. That affects first nations people whether they are in urban settings or across the country. I attended the Kehewin First Nation sod turning in February. By January 2020, that will be the last boil water advisory for any first nation in Alberta.

With the minute I have left, I want to talk about why an urban riding like mine needs infrastructure. We have the youngest city in the country, with an average age of 34, which is putting me on the other side of the young age now. When a city is that young and dynamic, we need infrastructure, like transit. We have invested almost $1 billion in the transit system that would go through my riding all the way to West Edmonton Mall and to Lewis Estates, so that parents can get home to their kids faster, so that young professionals can get to their activities after work, so that our dynamic economy can continue to grow.

In an urban riding like mine, we need to see commerce increase, and we need people to be able to get home to their families. Our government has listened. Our historic investments in infrastructure will continue, with $16 billion a year over the next nine years. That is improving lives. It is making things better. That is why, with budget 2019, our government and I are here for Edmonton.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the comments my hon. colleague made was about the Canada child benefit. Bill C-97, which came through the finance committee, a committee I am privileged to serve on, included the poverty reduction strategy. For the first time in law, we will have set targets for a reduction in poverty.

We know that the best poverty reduction plan is to create jobs. Since we took office, Canadians have created over a million jobs, the majority of which are full-time. We have also implemented a number of other measures, such as the Canada child benefit, the Canada workers benefit and the 10% increase in the GIS.

Could the member for Edmonton Centre tell us how important these measures are to his constituents?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to represent the riding of Edmonton Centre. When I go door to door and I see a small pair of shoes or a bike outside, I ask people how the Canada child benefit is benefiting them. They tell me they do not have to choose anymore between food and rent. They say their kids are in music or a sports club.

I asked for the numbers. In April 2019 alone, 7,250 payments were made to 12,300 kids, with an average payment of $630. About $4.6 million is going to families in Edmonton Centre every month. That is transformative to their lives, to how they run their households, to the economy of Edmonton Centre and, in fact, to the economy of the city of Edmonton.

A magical thing happens across a country, including small communities, when we take the country from 13% poverty to 9%. The economy does better, communities are healthier, families are happier and everybody benefits. That is what this government has done.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Edmonton Centre brings such passion to this. It was so good to hear the story he shared of Ethan regarding the impact of bullying and what we need to do to support mental health among all our citizens, but particularly the young people in our communities.

I would like to ask the member about homelessness and the effect of homelessness in his community. He mentioned some numbers from Edmonton Centre. In Guelph, 13,150 payments have gone to 23,290 children, and $7.2 million per month is coming into our community to help people in poverty.

Could he comment on the impact that could have on homelessness in his community or my community?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development is doing exceptional work on the issue of housing. Right now, we are having an active conversation with him and the Minister of Natural Resources about how we can solve this issue for the city of Edmonton with a portfolio-based approach and focus on the 900 hardest-to-house people and their permanent supportive housing. When we have support from ministers who want to do right by the people in our communities, we can make a difference.

Edmonton leads this country in ending homelessness. About 8,000 people have been housed over the last seven years, with 5,000 more to go, 900 of whom are hard to house. When we get these 900 permanent supportive units done, we can get to the other 4,000 people. We will be the first city of our size in this country where the government will have helped to end homelessness.

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, of course, we are all listening very attentively to the member for Edmonton Centre.

I am curious to know whether he believes that our investments in the middle class and in helping more Canadians join the middle class explain the following facts: first, a million new jobs since 2015; second, the lowest unemployment rate since 1976; third, one of the fastest growth rates among all developed economies; fourth, a debt relative to the economy that is falling and will soon be at the lowest level in four decades; fifth, a typical middle-class family in 2019 having $2,000 more than in 2015; and finally, the lowest level of child poverty ever seen in our country.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I might be wise and just recap what the minister said to answer his question, because it was so well phrased.

Just this week, the IMF finally debunked trickle-down economics forever. Trickle-down economics does not work, full stop. What works is investing in people. What works is putting money in the hands of middle-class people so they can decide what is best for their families at the local level. When we combine that with making sure that families are better off by $2,000 because of tax changes and making sure there are well-paying jobs from coast to coast to coast, our economy will perform at the top of the G7.

As the minister and I both know, we are not fully through the recovery process in Alberta. However, promising signals are there. Of the 100,000 jobs created in the last month, 20% were in Alberta, where 12% of the population lives. That means jobs are coming back to Alberta, and our government will help bring even more of them to the people there.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go over some things in this budget that would benefit Yukon, in particular, and then some general things that would help the Yukon, as well as all Canadians.

First, as I said earlier tonight, Canada is the only Arctic country in the world, of the eight Arctic nations, that does not have a university north of 60. This budget is historic for Canada because of the $26 million going to Yukon College to build a science building, one of the key items that are needed. Next year, Yukon College will become Yukon university and Canada will be in line with the rest of the nations. The first course, which is not offered anywhere else and is also historic, will be a bachelor of indigenous governance. Because there are over 600 first nations in Canada, and Inuit, there will be a huge take-up on that particular course alone.

The territorial government has to deliver on education, health care, all of the things that provinces have to deliver, and there are great increases: $47.2 million for territorial financing, $2.3 million for health transfer and $0.6 million for social transfer, for a total of $50 million. Just to put that in perspective, Yukon is 1/1000th of the population, so if that were the same across the country, that would be $50 billion. It shows strong support for the territorial government. From what I remember, the other two territories will receive even more than that.

Before I go any further, I meant to start with something unrelated to the north. I am also the chair of the Northern and Prairie Caucus, and I want to mention another very innovative thing in the budget, the money for a water institution or program in the Prairies, which is hugely forward-thinking because it affects so much. The PFRA, one of the most popular institutions in Canada, was closed a number of years ago. The Liberal member from Saskatchewan brought this idea forward, and the Minister of Finance is financing a study to look at water, which is so important in the Prairies, including flooding, drought, the glaciers being reduced, water supply, irrigation, all of those things. This is a very forward-thinking item in the budget, and I thank the member from Saskatchewan.

I also have an ask for a women's centre in Watson Lake. I know those members are in Ottawa today.

In the north, the equivalent of western diversification or the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is called CanNor. Once again, it is receiving a great increase. We lobbied hard for this. It will receive $75 million over five years for a diversification program. There was an increase for tourism in the north of $5.1 million over two years. Tourism is Yukon's biggest private sector employer. The two biggest industries are tourism and mining. I treat tourism like a lost sector in Ottawa. It is much bigger than many other sectors, but over the decades, it has not nearly gotten the attention or support that it should have. We have a tremendous tourism minister now, with a new tourism strategy and great funding. I will mention more later in my speech.

I will talk about the northern trade corridors. I talked about how big $50 million was, but the north has been assigned $400 million in the trade corridors program, which is a massive amount. It is far more than in other parts of Canada. I apologize to other MPs here, but, as everyone in the House knows, that infrastructure is needed in the north for a small population that is spread out over more than third of Canada.

There is another huge win in the budget for the north. As I said, the biggest sector for Yukon's GDP is mining, and the mineral exploration tax credit was increased for the first time ever for five years, which everyone in rural Canada will appreciate. It has always been yearly, which made it hard for exploration companies to plan. This is so instrumental in their programs because the vast majority of them need this tax credit to do their work, as there is no good reason to invest otherwise.

Another huge item that affects us more in the north than others, but also affects a number of areas in Canada, is loan repayments for the negotiations of first nations self-government and land claim agreements for modern treaties. The way it used to work in the Yukon was they took 30 years to negotiate. The first nations that were negotiating did not have the money to hire lawyers and negotiators so we loaned them the money. By the time they got their land claims, they already owed a good percentage back because we had loaned them the money for the negotiators. Therefore, this budget has made a historic move of committing to reimburse the first nations that have already paid the money or pay that money for the first nations that have not yet done so. Hopefully, that will encourage more first nations in Canada to become the success stories of the modern treaties. There are a number of them across Canada, but the biggest number is in the Yukon, in my riding.

There is one other thing with respect to the north, which I do not think anyone in this House would know. In fact, very few people in my riding would know this, only scientists, but it shows the finance minister's attention to value. There is no political gain in this. Very few people know about it, but it is very important. It is called the polar continental shelf program. When people research in the north, like other university researchers, they can get the money to do the research. However, to get to the north, it costs a huge amount of money. I remember going a small distance, approximately the distance most members would travel to get here to Ottawa, which would perhaps take a couple of hours, and it cost $5,000. Therefore, these researchers need the money to get to their location and cover what other scientists do. That is what the polar continental shelf program does. I give big kudos to the minister for that because very few people know about it.

The general items that would help Yukoners the way they help everyone else are as follows.

The first is more money for homes and businesses to be more energy efficient. A lot of people have suggested that. It would be done through the FCM program.

Another is the increase for seniors. We have seniors projects right across Yukon and in the rural communities in Whitehorse, and we have press conferences that are so moving. The seniors benefit so much and have so much fun. It keeps them healthy and reduces the costs to government.

I said I was going to get back to tourism. For years, there has not been nearly enough money for tourism in Canada in the lost sectors. There is an increase of $60 million this year in this budget for tourism marketing, added to the increases in previous years. That is great for me because, other than P.E.I., which is a little ahead of us, the biggest private sector proportion of our economy in the north is tourism. Therefore, that helps us more than everywhere else, but of course everywhere else in the country would benefit.

Another item a lot of people might not know about is that we can make Canada bigger. Most people think we are set at where we are at. However, we can expand the area of the continental shelf we are responsible for, but we have to do a lot of geological explorations and discovery, as well as scientific work, to determine that, which costs money. Canada, Denmark and Russia are all doing this in the same area, so we will have competition. If we did not have the science, we would not be able to compete or increase the area we have responsibility over.

In closing, because I am running out of time, there is a big increase in indigenous languages. In 2017, I think it was somewhere around $5 million and it has been increasing every year. By 2023 or 2024, it will be up to $116 million. Therefore, the increase from $5 million to $116 million really shows our commitment to how important that is to the life, strength and foundation of the culture of first nations people.

I am sorry I could not get to the environment and the 50 programs we have there, but I will leave that for the next speech.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for the speech he gave, which was kind of a summary of what is going on in his riding, as we are all expected to do on behalf of our constituents, asking what the budget has for our constituencies.

I noticed that he failed to mention some of the darker clouds in the budget, especially on the deficit and debt numbers as they are right now. I wonder if the member could comment on his comfort level with the government accumulating well over $100 billion of new debt in the next few years. We are at $705 billion right now, as the national debt stands. If we add in Crown corporation debt, we are at about $1 trillion.

One of the most interesting things is that when the government proceeds to borrow large amounts of money on the public market, the central bank, the Bank of Canada, reaches the point where it has now started to buy mortgage bonds, widely traded mortgage bonds on the market to fill up the balance sheet. It is unique. It is the first time in the history of Canada.

I would like to hear if the member has any concerns over the out-of-control spending, the out-of-control debt or the $1 trillion of debt, combining the Crown corporations and the Government of Canada.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to get that question.

First of all, I would like to say that I really appreciate the member. I have been on committee with him. He has a very positive input and I like that. I also love it when the Conservatives ask about debt, because for a majority of the years they were in power, they increased that national debt. I do not know why Conservatives keep asking about things in Parliament that they did such a terrible job at. If they are against debt, hopefully they will start convincing themselves.

The other thing the member did not mention was that because of all these investments, and the finance minister always calls them investments, there is $20 billion more to pay down that debt from revenues, because the economy is booming.

I am being cut off, so I cannot talk about more good news and things we have done. I have a long list.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague from Yukon. He touched on something that is very important to the people in my riding and people right across this country, and that is indigenous languages. The member talked about the money that the Liberals are rolling out, and the scale of the rollout, gradually building to $116 million.

The Province of B.C. stepped in and invested $50 million to save languages, because of the delays from the federal government to invest in languages. In fact, we are losing many native language speakers, month by month, especially the Nuu-chah-nulth people who have made it very clear that they cannot deliver the language, and extend that knowledge in that language, which helps identify who they are as a people, that is how important it is, without funding. They are looking for funding.

I was just meeting with Tla-o-qui-aht chief and council. Councillor Anna Masso says that they need money to be able to save the languages of their culture.

Will the government commit to accelerating getting that money out the door, so that we do not lose those languages from those native language speakers right now?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, obviously I cannot speak to specifics, but I really thank the member for that. He expressed very well the need for this and the support for this.

I want to say two things, and the member will really appreciate this. We had a group of aboriginal youth, and the idea was that if they do well in school and everything, then they could spend time to build their culture with our investments, doing that later. Of course that is what a lot of people said to the youth.

However, a tremendous young aboriginal lady said, “No, it is the foundation, the language, the culture. When you have confidence in yourself built from the support for our own language, our own culture, that is what catapults you into success in your life.”

I appreciate the member's support for that.

The other thing is congratulations to everyone in this House. In this Parliament, we passed the motion from our committee to have simultaneous translation of aboriginal language in this House and in committees, which is historic. It shows young aboriginal people, who see their language in the centre of democracy for Canada, that they can go anywhere with their language and they should be proud of it.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, people in Vancouver East expect their government to make life affordable, sustainable and fair for all Canadians. They expect their government to be on their side.

In Vancouver East, I have heard from my constituents time and time again that we need real measures to make life affordable for Canadians, that we need immediate and urgent actions to protect our climate and environment. On behalf of the constituents of Vancouver East, I have been strongly advocating for measures such as affordable housing, public universal pharmacare, environmental protections, climate action and tax fairness. Instead, we now have a country faced with many crises.

We have a climate crisis, where if we do not take immediate action our planet will not be inhabitable for our future generations. We have a housing crisis, where people are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless and getting priced out of their own communities. We have a criminal crisis, where billions of dollars in profits from criminal acts were laundered last year in Canada. We have an opioid crisis, where Canadians are dying every day.

We have a humanitarian crisis, where so many indigenous women and girls have gone missing and are murdered. The impact of colonialism is so deep and so rooted in systemic racism and failures that the national inquiry on the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls has declared that is a genocide.

It was deeply disappointing to see how budget 2019 failed to meaningfully address our many crises, never mind the many other challenges faced by Canadians.

For many constituents of Vancouver East, the number one issue facing our generation is our climate and environmental emergency. To meet our goals under the Paris Agreement, Canada has to lower its emissions to 325 million tonnes by 2030. According to the government's own performance report, we will only get down to 500 million tonnes, which means we are not even close.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report stated last year that we have 12 years to avert climate disaster through a drastic overhaul of all our current economic systems. We now have only 11 years left to achieve this. As the clock ticks, people have been demonstrating persistently for immediate action for climate protection and the preservation of natural resources from our leaders, especially our youth, who will be most affected by the consequences of our inaction. The government has a responsibility to create the systems and frameworks to protect our environment and our future generations.

Many scientists have stated that the technology already exists that can maintain quality of life without further impacting our climate and environment. We simply need the political will and courage to change. And yet here we are, buying leaky pipelines and adopting the previous Conservative government's weak carbon emissions target, as if we do not have a climate crisis at our door.

On another critical issue, we are still waiting on government action to address our housing affordability crisis.

Housing has long been declared a basic right by the United Nations, and Canada has signed and ratified a number of international human rights treaties that identify the right to adequate housing as a fundamental human right.

In our national housing strategy, most of the funding in that new strategy had been announced years earlier and most of that funding, a full 90% of what was announced in budget 2017, has been off-loaded for spending after the next election. Even at that, the vast majority of that funding will not flow until 2024. It is a cynical communications strategy that plays politics with people's real struggles.

The government, in an attempt to inflate the result of its limited housing programs, has even resorted to double-counting the results for “rhetorical advantage”. Instead of playing numbers games, what we need is for the government to make real investments now. To that end, the NDP is calling for a commitment of 500,000 units of affordable housing across Canada.

In addition, despite decades of promising a national pharmacare program, after being lobbied by big pharma 680 times, the government has once again let big pharma win the day.

I recently met an individual who told me that she is taking her daily medication every other day in an effort to save money. This is wrong. No more excuses. Canadians need and deserve comprehensive public universal pharmacare coverage now.

On a related matter, we also need accountability for the opioid crisis. While the U.S. has successfully taken on big pharma for misbranding OxyContin with the intent of defrauding and misleading, here in Canada, the government is refusing to take action. Instead, budget 2019 continues with the blanket tax break for the richest corporations.

Tax havens are still in place and will continue to take over $16 billion every year from much needed programs for all Canadians, and of course, big oil continues to receive subsidies. In fact, the “2019 Spring Reports of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development” was highly critical of the government's accounting of tax and non-tax subsidies for the fossil fuel industry.

As we now know, 47 billion dollars' worth of profits from criminal acts was laundered last year in Canada. It is extremely disturbing that money laundering has so extensively permeated the country. Equally disturbing is the fact that the report by Dr. Peter German, in B.C., revealed that no federal resources are being used to tackle money laundering. Literally, in the federal money laundering unit, no one is working on the issue of money laundering. This explains why there are so few prosecutions and convictions in money laundering cases.

During last year's statutory review by the finance committee of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, numerous expert witnesses agreed that to combat tax evasion and money laundering, the federal government needed to work with the provinces to establish a central public registry that would provide the identity of the beneficial owners of corporations and trusts. The Honourable David Eby, Attorney General of B.C., argued that this kind of registry is needed, in part by citing a study from Transparency International Canada. The study showed that it is impossible to determine the true owners of more than half the real estate properties for sale.

Denis Howlett, of Canadians for Tax Fairness, emphasized that the registry must be “in an open, searchable format”. Barrister and solicitor Mora Johnson added that a transparent public register would enable those searching the database to track the most common methods taxpayers use to avoid paying their fair share of taxes and to find individuals involved in money laundering. However, when all was said and done, the Liberals and Conservatives chose to join forces and ignore the recommendation of the majority of witnesses that a public register be established.

I also strongly believe that we need to increase oversight of home sales to ensure that sellers are not falsely reporting their secondary investment properties as primary residences, as this rule-skirting allows people to avoid paying capital tax gains.

I raised this issue when I was still the MLA for Vancouver-Mt. Pleasant. One way to address this is to ensure that proof of residency through income tax filing is provided at the completion of the sale transaction. With increased oversight and crackdowns on this behaviour, the increased tax revenue could be set aside in an earmarked fund dedicated to increasing the affordable housing stock in Canada.

Canada needs to put significant resources and effort into law enforcement, prosecution and adjudication to effectively tackle this problem. We can do this. We need to do this.

I have gone on also about the immigration issues that call for the government to not jam through the refugee determination process in this budget omnibus budget bill. The Liberals refuse to listen and are going ahead with it. Experts have already called on the government to stop this now. It would put people at risk, and most particularly, it would put women and girls at risk. For a feminist government, this is not acceptable. It still has a chance to do that. I hope that the government will listen to the experts.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in her speech, the member talked about housing and how some of it was a future-focused investment. Within my riding, we have four projects I am currently working on. One is a seniors housing project as a co-investment. It is part of the $40-billion, 10-year plan. In my community, we are looking at a $36-million project, 85% of which could be funded through the co-investment fund. We are working through city council and with our counties on this exciting project. Also, there are another eight homeless units going above a shelter downtown. We just finished financing a study on that and are moving through city council with that as well.

Could the hon. member mention how important it is to work with our local municipal councils and our federal government to get these important projects going in our communities?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in the province of British Columbia, the NDP B.C. government is doing its best to actually invest in affordable housing, unlike its predecessor, the Liberal government. In 16 years in government, it did not produce the necessary housing to address the housing crisis we face in British Columbia.

Of course, the federal Liberal government pulled out of the national affordable housing program back in 1993. This country lost more than half a million units of affordable housing as a result of that. This program the current government has introduced will barely catch up.

On the eight units of shelter the member mentioned, I have to tell members that I do not even have to walk one block in my community to find eight people who are homeless right now, today. It is insufficient for what is happening.

The government members can pat themselves on the back, but the truth is, if they walk down the streets in my community, they will see the crisis every day, and they will feel the urgency that we need to take action now. Local governments and the City of Vancouver want to act. Mayor Kennedy Stewart has already put that on the record and has welcomed the federal government to come to the table, put real money on the table and get it done.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague sits on the immigration committee, and she made comments in her speech about some of the immigration sections that were kind of snuck into this large omnibus budget bill. I would like to ask her about one aspect of those changes.

One thing I hear from people I talk to about immigration, whether I am in Brampton, in my own riding or in other parts of the country, is concern about shoddy immigration consultants. I know that my colleagues from Brampton North and Brampton West just love it when I visit their ridings.

When people receive advice from shoddy immigration consultants, there is a concern about the impact that has on their lives if they act on that advice and it has negative consequences for them.

There is some discussion in the budget about changing the process of regulation, but what we heard at committee was that those changes really are a rebranding of an existing body and that there are some big gaps there that I think the opposition members share concerns about.

I wonder if the member can talk a little more about the failure of the government to actually address this issue of shoddy advice from some immigration consultants.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. Our committee on immigration actually studied this issue at length. It is the only study that produced a report where all parties unanimously supported the recommendations.

There was a recommendation to say that there needs to be government regulation of consultants in the immigration sector and that the time for self-regulation has come to an end, precisely because of the many problems that exist. People are ripped off, and they have no recourse. They are afraid to go forward with a complaint, because they are afraid it will impact their immigration application process, yet the government refused to accept the recommendation from the committee. It was a unanimous recommendation.

The government has now jammed into the budget bill this new regulatory process. It basically used the same people who had been doing this work, gave it a new name as a college, expanded its powers and said, “Here you go.”

I fear that this is not going to be sufficient to address the issue. I fear that the people who are going to be hurt are the very people who need the government to take action to protect them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a few minutes to join in this debate tonight and to talk about the issues that matter to my community and to all Canadians.

I must say to my colleague from Vancouver East that the reason Canada now will have a national housing strategy and that the government is investing millions of dollars, in co-operation with other communities and other partners, is the very issue of housing my colleague mentioned. It is a serious issue across Canada. We are not just talking about the homeless. We are talking about seniors who cannot sell their houses because they have nowhere to go, and they are struggling as it is. There are a lot of people who are struggling and looking for housing. I hope that the way we are doing it, under our new national housing strategy, is going to help decrease the number of homeless people. More important, it is to help people find alternative forms of housing compared to what they currently have.

As we all know, Canadians made a choice in the last election. We all worked hard. We provided a platform that provided hope, hard work and opportunity. Canadians gave us the trust and the opportunity. I believe we have worked extremely hard over the last three and a half, almost four, years to make a difference. We have created over a million jobs. Canadians are working.

I can remember how many times I would be canvassing and door-knocking in the last many years and listening to people who were out of work. There were no employment opportunities for them. We have the lowest unemployment rate since the 1970s. That is a great thing. Sure we take credit for it. Maybe others could take credit for it too. All I know is that I am happy to know that Canadians are working. They are feeling successful. They have money they are able to invest in housing. They are able to invest in their children's education, and that is an important thing for all of us. That is why we are parliamentarians and why we come here. We want to invest in our country, and we want to see the government producing policies that matter to people.

The first-time homebuyer incentive will certainly help a lot of young people in their mid-thirties who are having significant difficulty just getting into the housing market. Once they can get into the housing market and stay employed, they will have lots of opportunity to build equity in that house and then can later on move into a larger house as their family grows.

Another way we are looking at helping people is with the Canada training benefit, to help working Canadians find the time to change careers. I have lots of people in the riding of Humber River—Black Creek who are in jobs they are not particularly happy in. The Canada training benefit we have introduced in this budget would give people the opportunity to change jobs and get into something they truly believe in and really want to do.

As we continue to invest in people, we are investing in full-time private jobs. That is what people have, and that is what we want to see.

When we talk about Humber River—Black Creek, we can talk about the over 300,000 children who are no longer in poverty and the thousands of seniors who now have other opportunities before them. If they choose to work, they can earn more money without it being taxed back. That is an important part of it.

Trying to find a house, trying to get a home and trying to get a job are all critically important as we move forward in this new world we live in. A more flexible and increased homebuyers plan will mean that Canadians can withdraw an additional $10,000 from their RRSPs. Before this budget, it was $25,000. Now people can withdraw $35,000 to use as a down payment.

By cracking down on the people who break the rules, we are trying to make housing affordable for everyone else. The increased funding for a rental construction financing initiative would help build thousands of new rental units all across the country.

We talk about seniors and the fact that we are maintaining the age of retirement at age 65. We are also encouraging our seniors to remain active by investing in a variety of programs, such as new horizons.

One of the great things we did in this term of Parliament was establish a Minister of Seniors. She is doing a wonderful job making sure that the issues of seniors are front and centre for all of us in the House, not just on this side of the House. Seniors will benefit all across our cities.

I appreciate having a moment or two to speak to this very important budget. I look forward to having another opportunity in the days to come.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to correct the record from earlier to include the name Lily Mesh in my speech in thanking my staff. I obviously had a moment of forgetfulness.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

It may not be what we consider a valid point of order, but it is an important point to make.

It being 9 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. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2 to 17. 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:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division on this motion will also apply to Motions Nos. 2 to 17.

The question is on Motion No. 18. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 19 to 33. 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 nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 18 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 19 to 33.

The question is on Motion No. 34. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 35 to 43. 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 nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 34 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 35 to 43.

The question is on Motion No. 44. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 45 to 51, 53 and 54. 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 nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division on this motion will also apply to Motions Nos. 45 to 51, 53 and 54.

The question is on Motion No. 52. 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 nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 52 stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 55. Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

[Chair read text of motion to House]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

the Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will pease say yea.

[Soem 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:

The recorded division on Motion No. 55 stands deferred.

The question is on Motion No. 56. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 57. 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 nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 56 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motion No. 57.

Normally at this time, the House would proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at report stage of the bill. However, pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 28, the recorded divisions stand deferred until Wednesday, June 5, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

The House resumed from June 4 consideration of Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

It being 3:22 p.m., pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 28, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill C-97.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2 to 17.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #1335

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 1 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 2 to 17 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 18. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 19 to 33.

(The House divided on Motion No. 18, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #1336

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 18 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 19 to 33 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 34. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 35 to 43.

(The House divided on Motion No. 34, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #1337

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 34 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 35 to 43 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 44. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 45 to 51, 53 and 54.

(The House divided on Motion No. 44, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #1338

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 44 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 45 to 51, 53 and 54 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 52.

(The House divided on Motion No. 52, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #1339

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 52 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 55.

(The House divided on Motion No. 55, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #1340

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 55 carried.

The next question is on Motion No. 56. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 57.

(The House divided on Motion No. 56, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #1341

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 56 defeated. I therefore declare Motion No. 57 defeated.