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.

Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

moved that Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to contribute to the debate on Bill C-97, the budget implementation act. The act would implement important measures in our 2019 budget that the Minister of Finance tabled last month in the House.

Budget 2019 comes at a time when Canada's economy is strong. Thanks to the hard work of Canadians, more than 900,000 jobs have been created since 2015, most of them full time. Unemployment is at 40-year lows.

New jobs are being created across the country, but many of these new well-paying opportunities require a level of education or a skill set that people do not have the time or the money to get. Many Canadians feel as though they are missing out.

Young people who are striking out into the job market are hoping to get their first full-time job, one that pays well and gives them a good start to their working life.

That is why budget 2019 has a particular focus on the challenges faced by young Canadians. Young Canadians are more diverse, educated and socially connected than ever before. Like all Canadians, they want the chance to work in a good career, buy a home and build a better future for themselves, their families and their communities.

Whether at town halls or during online discussions, young Canadians have delivered the same message to the government: Invest in a plan that helps youth overcome the barriers to their success. Our government has listened. With budget 2019, our government is making strategic and responsible investments to address these challenges and provide young Canadians with access to opportunities that position them for well-paid jobs today and tomorrow, make it easier for them to have better access to home ownership and help them thrive.

Just as our government helps more children get the best start in life with measures like the Canada child benefit, which has helped lift nearly 300,000 children out of poverty since 2015, it remains equally focused on what comes next for young people, whether they seek to purchase a first home, enrol in university or college, or start their career.

Measures that address those issues are what I will be speaking about today, because budget 2019 is not just a plan to create jobs; it is targeted help where people need it the most.

We can see that approach when it comes to housing. Many Canadians might feel that because of high house prices in some of Canada's largest cities, buying a home is increasingly out of reach. We know that young people especially are being priced out of some house and condo markets. Average home prices today are about eight times larger than the average full-time income of Canadians aged 25 to 34. That is markedly different from a few decades ago, when they were about four times larger.

To address the difficulty that young families may be having in buying their first home, through Bill C-97, budget 2019 proposes a new first-time home buyer incentive. With this extra help in the shape of a shared equity mortgage through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Canadians can lower their monthly mortgage payments, making home ownership more affordable.

The incentive would provide funding of 5% or 10% of the home purchase price for existing or new homes respectively, with no ongoing monthly payments required. The program is expected to help approximately 100,000 Canadians buy homes that they can afford.

Through budget 2019 and Bill C-97, our government is also increasing the home buyers' plan withdrawal limit for the first time in a decade. This would provide first-time home buyers with greater access to their registered retirement savings plan savings to buy a home.

Specifically, the budget proposes to increase the HBP withdrawal limit to $35,000 from the previous $25,000 limit. Young Canadians are the main beneficiaries of the new first-time home buyer incentive and of the increase in the withdrawal limit on the home buyers' plan. They are the Canadians who are especially likely to be prospective first-time homebuyers and to live in urban centres where affordability gaps are pronounced.

These two measures to make home ownership more affordable for Canadians are the next step in our national housing strategy, which is included in the bill we are debating today.

For more affordable rental units in areas with low vacancy, budget 2019 would also expand the rental construction financing incentive, helping to build more affordable rental options for Canadians to live near where they work or study and tackling homelessness across the country through the reaching home strategy.

Our government also believes in doing its part to make sure young Canadians can access the post-secondary education they need to get the jobs they want. Our government is committed to making post-secondary education more affordable for students and to helping young Canadians pursue higher education without the undue financial burden that often comes with post-secondary learning.

While Canada is among the most educated countries in the world, too many Canadians still face barriers that prevent them from pursuing post-secondary studies or skilled trades programs. This is why, since 2015, our government has helped make university, college and apprenticeship programs more affordable and accessible. From boosting Canada student grants to lowering the interest rate on Canada student loans to improving access to loans for vulnerable students, our government is making sure more young people have the opportunity to go to university or college.

With budget 2019, the government is taking new steps to help Canadians access post-secondary education.

Budget 2019 proposes to lower the floating interest rate on Canada student loans to the prime rate, helping close to one million borrowers who are repaying their student loans and saving the average borrower approximately $2,000 over the time of the loan.

In addition, budget 2019 has proposed to waive interest payments during the six-month grace period after graduation, helping approximately 200,000 borrowers every year transition successfully from their studies to work.

To make these student loans more accessible, a modernized Canada student loans program will better respond to the needs of vulnerable student borrowers.

The investment in budget 2019 includes increased supports for students with permanent disabilities as well as the introduction of interest-free and payment-free medical and parental leave for student loan borrowers.

Also, budget 2019 proposes to expand parental leave coverage for post-secondary students and post-doctoral fellows who receive federal granting council funding from six months to 12 months. This will help parents to better balance work obligations with family responsibilities, such as child care.

When combined with the government's previous investments in student financial assistance, budget 2019's proposals respond to the reality of rising tuition costs, rising living costs and the changing nature of work faced by today's students and youth, and they go far to help achieve the goal of making higher education more affordable.

Barriers to pursuing post-secondary education and finding good, well-paying work are also certainly a challenge that Canada's indigenous peoples continue to face.

Engaging more indigenous people in the workforce will boost economic outcomes for the nearly 1.5 million indigenous Canadians, as well as spur economic opportunities and raise living standards for all Canadians. That is why budget 2019 proposes to provide distinction-based funding for post-secondary education to help first nations, Inuit and Métis Nation students better access post-secondary education and obtain the skills and experience they need to succeed.

With regard to work placement, experience and apprenticeship, beyond the cost of post-secondary education is another reality that many young Canadians face. After graduation, just having a degree or a diploma is often not enough to secure a good, well-paying job. They want more opportunities to learn while they work and to work while they learn.

This is why our government is committed to helping young Canadians find relevant on-the-job experience and employer-relevant skills that will help to ensure a smooth transition into the workforce.

Budget 2019 supports this commitment by proposing to provide more on-the-job learning opportunities for young Canadians who want relevant, real-world work experience. The government would do this by extending the student work placement program as part of a plan to create up to 84,000 new student work placements per year by 2023-24. This will be a significant step toward ensuring that 10 years from now, every young Canadian who wants a work placement will be able to get one.

At the same time, by providing partnerships with businesses to support work placements through the modernized youth employment strategy, the government will help more young people develop new skills and obtain professional experience earlier. The proposed modernized youth employment strategy will have the aim of ensuring that all young people have access to the supports they need, including enhanced supports for young people facing more serious barriers to joining and staying in the workforce.

Furthermore, in an increasingly global economy and labour market, Canadian youth need to develop a range of skills, many of which are best fostered through international experiences such as travelling, studying and working overseas. Building on the commitment in the 2018 fall economic statement to develop a new international education strategy, budget 2019 proposes to support Canadian post-secondary students and young people pursuing opportunities to travel, study and work abroad.

The government is also acting to attract more top-tier foreign students to Canada by promoting Canadian educational institutions as high-calibre places to study.

In addition, budget 2019 includes measures to encourage more Canadians to pursue volunteer opportunities. Service opportunities give young Canadians the chance to gain valuable work and life experience, build on what they have learned through their formal education and give back to their community in meaningful ways.

To encourage and support more service opportunities, in January 2018 our government launched the design phase of the Canada service corps, a youth service initiative. The expanded Canada service corps proposed in 2019 will help young Canadians serve their communities while gaining valuable skills and leadership experience. This includes supporting the creation of up to 15,000 annual volunteer service placements for young Canadians by 2023-24 and of 1,000 annual individual grants for self-directed service projects.

The investment in the Canada service corps will also address barriers to participation in service that have been identified by under-represented youth by providing new incentives and program supports co-created with young people.

Budget 2019 also proposes to improve access to mentorship, learning resources and start-up financing to help young Canadian entrepreneurs bring their business ideas to life and to market through Futurpreneur Canada.

These initiatives are just some of the many actions our government is taking to help more young Canadians get quality education and valuable experience as they build a future for themselves.

Finally, I would like to speak about the subject that is too often overlooked, and that is the mental health of young Canadians.

People aged 15 to 24 are more likely than those in other age groups to have a mood or anxiety disorder. Suicide is the second most common cause of death among people aged 15 to 24, while it ranks ninth among the general population.

Less than half of young people with depression or suicidal thoughts have sought professional help. That is why budget 2019 is proposing to invest in a new pan-Canadian suicide prevention service. This service would provide people across Canada with access to bilingual 24-7 crisis support from trained responders, using the technology of their choice. This builds on the government's previous investments in mental health supports, such as the $5 billion over 10 years to provincial and territorial governments to ensure long-term support for mental health in communities around the country.

To conclude, young Canadians are the future drivers of Canada's economic growth and are ready to be the champions of a fair, more diverse, more inclusive nation. They deserve opportunities to succeed in and benefit from Canada's growing economy. Our government's investments to make education more affordable, give young people more opportunities to find and keep good, well-paying jobs, and make home ownership more attainable will help young Canadians today and help keep our economy strong and growing for the long term.

With budget 2019, our government is investing in ways to prepare young Canadians for their future, helping them succeed for many years to come.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will not restate what has been stated so many times, that of course this budget is again not meeting the Liberals' 2015 campaign commitments to balance, but I am going to target one area that people were interested in but are now a little disappointed about.

I had someone reach out to me and say, “Listen, I am in my thirties. I would really like to get into the housing market. I do not have an RRSP that I can take $35,000 out of. That is number one. Number two, I am in a market where to find something under $500,000 is going to be a very significant challenge.”

The most important question he asked, which I could not answer, was, “Number three, if I enter this new program, is it an interest-free loan, or is the government going to have equity in my home? If so, is it going to take the equity out at the end?”

I could not answer that question. I am hoping my colleague can, because it is one of the important measures that Liberals are heralding in this budget.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. colleague for her interest in our youth, in this country and, in particular, in the housing market.

This is something incredibly important that we have heard from young people across this country. In relation to the member's question about the affordability, or having funds in an RSP, we have heard that, but what we have also heard is that the issues facing young people getting into the housing market are not one-size-fits-all. The Conservatives did nothing on this file for 10 years, and allowed the housing market to explode.

We are addressing the concerns of people who are able to afford more in their RSPs. We are also increasing rental units. We are also creating the Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation's new incentive, which is an incentive that is actually going to reduce individuals' monthly housing costs. The Conservatives left our economy in such a state, and we saw that household debt was continuing to increase.

In terms of the specific details of the CMHC plan, those packages will be developed very soon, and as it says in the budget, those details will be forthcoming.

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

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

It is important to point out that, today, we are debating what is likely to be this government's last budget implementation bill. This was the government's last chance, but it still proposed what is essentially a budget of half-measures. These measures do not do as much as Canadians expected from this government, particularly when it comes to the environment. The March 19 budget statement also made very little mention of the environment, climate change or the energy transition. There are a few half-measures that were, of course, well received, but they certainly do not go far enough to make the changes required to save our planet.

The universal pharmacare program is another half-measure that the government announced to buy time until the upcoming election. This bill gave the government one last chance to implement such a system and to introduce a flagship piece of legislation, but the Liberals put it off until later, as usual.

Why is the parliamentary secretary once again asking Canadians to wait?

Why are the Liberals only making promises that ask people to put their trust in them for another term when they did not even have the courage to keep their promises and make those changes during their first four-year term?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are not asking Canadians to wait. In fact, we are acting. It would have been very difficult for the NDP, which promised to balance the budget at all costs and adopt the same economic plan as the Conservatives, to do these things. We are moving forward. This is a transformational investment to establish a national pharmacare plan.

We are moving forward to a national pharmacare plan with the best expertise and recommendations to build a foundation, which is what this budget does. This budget sets the foundation to establish a national negotiator. It also deals with some of the most difficult issues in terms of drugs for rare diseases. We have to work in partnership with the provinces and territories.

We cannot ram things through like the Conservatives used to. We have to use a smart approach based on facts and evidence, but we are doing it. We are setting in place the foundation to create a national pharmacare plan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member about the Canada student loan provisions in division 22 of part 4 of this omnibus bill. Why would we be continuing to charge interest on student loans at all, given that when they were brought into this place under the government of Lester B. Pearson, there were no interest payments on student loans? We should actually be eliminating both tuition and student loans.

Now that the question of pharmacare has been raised, I have to say it is quite galling to hear that we need more evidence despite the reports that have been done by experts, not just within this Parliament but, for instance, by the Pharmacare 2020 report. That report was a collaboration of the leading experts across Canada, who pointed out that we would save $7 billion a year by moving to universal pharmacare.

I would suggest to the hon. member that it is not ramming anything down anyone's throat for the federal government to create a bulk-buying agency that would buy pharmaceutical drugs along a formulary that meets the needs of Canadians and not those of big pharma, that would bring down the prices, and that would then allow the provinces to decide if they want to buy drugs more cheaply through a federal government universal plan or to go out on their own if they would like to and pay more. There is nothing that keeps the price of drugs down when individual provinces go to large pharmaceutical companies and pay far more than any other jurisdiction around the world.

I would caution hon. members on the government side not to oversell the inadequate measures toward pharmacare in this budget.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I actually think the hon. member and I and our government's plan are on the exact same page and the same path forward. The evidence I speak about is the fact that we have an advisory council that is advising us on the best way to implement this and the areas in which we need to act.

This budget builds that foundation, in terms of drug purchasing, to create one negotiator. This in itself will help deal with the issue of multiple provinces and territories, as well as multiple people, negotiating with drug companies. By having one negotiator, we set the foundation in place to then move forward in other areas.

I also spoke about drugs for rare diseases, which can be incredibly difficult to deal with, especially in smaller provinces or provinces with smaller populations. This will allow the federal government to help in that area. Again, this is building on the foundation that will be based on the advisory council's advice. The next report will be coming soon.

However, we were not going to wait for all of the reports. We wanted to build on their recommendations and advice as soon as we could, and that is exactly what this budget does.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going back to the first part that the parliamentary secretary was talking about, specifically about home ownership for younger Canadians.

We know that more and more millennials do not realize that they may have the potential of home ownership. They start looking at renting as something they will do forever. It is so important that we start to move toward home ownership and get millennials in a position where they can actually benefit.

Can the parliamentary secretary comment on the long-term benefit of home ownership for millennials?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. This is an incredibly difficult issue for young people, in particular millennials, who are not able to access home ownership. Home ownership, for many Canadians, is their largest investment. We want to make sure that young people have access to the housing market as well.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

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, Human Rights; the hon. member for Drummond, Official Languages; the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, Telecommunications.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for constituents in the snowy upper Ottawa Valley riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, it is an honour to be their representative in this place.

In 2019, there is a sense among Canadians that the promise of progress, the idea that with hard work everyone could build a better life, is no longer true. The greatest threat to Canada's prosperity today is government, not climate change. Any country faced with massive government interference can be brought to starvation. Blaming poverty on climate change not only lets the government off the hook for bad policy but also encourages the enactment of harmful, inhumane policies.

Today's poverty has little to do with climate change. The most commonly held characteristics of affluent countries are greater personal liberty, private property rights, the rule of law, and an economic system closer to capitalism than to Communism. That is the recipe for prosperity.

The first thing that hits Canadians when they look at the budget document is that there is no plan for balanced budgets. This is a socialist budget.

Economists and the marketplace are telling Canadians that we will be in a recession within the next 12 to 18 months that will significantly impact the underlying projections that budgets are based on, as well as the fact that the government has been wildly spending at a time when Canada should have continued with the balanced budget policy that was left to them by our previous Conservative government.

Compounding the recession that is coming are the foreign policy failures of the government, particularly the inability of the Prime Minister to manage trade policy, first with our largest trading partner, America, and the tariffs on lumber and steel, and then with the trans-Pacific partnership that was basically handed to the government by our previous Conservative government, ready to go, and now with China and the dispute that is causing our farmers to suffer.

The government may be optimistically predicting GDP growth over the next year; however, the external shock of not ratifying the new NAFTA deal, the loss of confidence in the stock market in how Canada is managed and the broader fallout of a U.S.-China trade war mean all bets are off when it comes to predicting the size and duration of any future recession.

Canadians understand that when government runs a deficit, particularly one of the size and duration we see today in the 2019 budget document and Bill C-97, it means the Liberal Party is basically handing the bill not just to the next generation but to generations after that. It is recognized that there will be a price someone will have to pay, and it will be our children, grandchildren and their children.

This budget is being likened to someone being bought a very expensive gift, only to find out it was their own credit card that was being used to pay for it. If the gift was a shirt, it would be made of cheap cloth and two sizes too small.

People who live in Ontario have seen this all before. Canadians who follow my speeches in the House of Commons will have been warned about disgraced former prime minister top aide Gerry Butts, who was forced to resign over his role in the SNC-Lavalin corruption scandal. As a principal political operative for Dalton McGuinty and whatever backroom dealings he had with McGuinty's defeated party replacement, by trashing the Ontario economy, disgraced former PMO operative Gerald Butts can share the credit for the Toronto Liberal policy of “heat or eat” among seniors and others on fixed incomes.

In Ottawa, “heat or eat” refers to the carbon tax.

Canadians would not be as familiar with Butts' close buddy, Ben Chin, until the SNC-Lavalin scandal exposed his backroom role in that sordid affair. During the former attorney general's testimony before the House of Commons justice committee, she mentioned two names. The disgraced Gerry Butts was mentioned five times, and the now-infamous Ben Chin seven times.

In Ottawa, Ben Chin is chief of staff to the finance minister. In his role as political commissar, as was made clear during the SNC-Lavalin testimony, Ben Chin is there to promote the interests of his party over the good of Canadians.

This is a critical point to raise during the budget implementation debate, as Canadians need to be aware of Ben Chin and whether the interference role he had in Toronto is now happening in Ottawa, and at what scale.

Mr. Chin joined the finance minister's office as senior adviser and worked with the minister on the rollout of the government's third budget. The decision to hire Mr. Chin for the top position in the finance minister's office suggests a desire on Gerald Butts' part for an individual to keep close tabs on the finance minister.

That change marked the second significant staffing move in the finance minister's office. Previously, the Prime Minister's policy adviser, Justin To, another of Butts' confidants named in the SNC-Lavalin scandal, was shifted from the Prime Minister's Office to take over as policy and budget director for the finance minister. Ben Chin played the same role with former principal secretary Gerald Butts in Toronto in the disgraced Dalton McGuinty regime: run interference.

Well-informed observer Parker Gallant said this in the blog “Energy Perspectives”:

For the benefit of those who didn’t follow Ontario politics during the McGuinty/Wynne era, it’s worth pointing out both Gerry Butts and Ben Chin played significant roles in Ontario, especially the ill-fated electricity file.

Butts is credited as the mastermind behind Dalton McGuinty’s election as Ontario’s Premier: Butts was, according to the Toronto Star, “the man they call ‘the brains behind the operation’ and policy architect of the Liberal government since 2003.”

Butts left the McGuinty government in mid-2008, after he and the Ontario Liberal team set the stage for the Green Energy Act, by pushing for renewable wind and solar projects and to close coal plants. Butts went off to lead the WWF (World Wildlife Fund) for four years before joining [the Prime Minister] as his political advisor.

The article continues:

Ben Chin, engaged as a “political advisor” to Dalton McGuinty, was the McGuinty candidate chosen to run against the NDP’s Peter Tabuns in a byelection in 2006. Chin lost, but returned as a “senior advisor” to Premier McGuinty’s office where he again worked with Gerry Butts. Chin left for the private sector and a short while later was hired back as Vice President Communications for the OPA (Ontario Power Authority). The OPA was the creation of Dwight Duncan when he was McGuinty’s Minister of Energy and became the Crown corporation to enact the myriad of things mired in the Green Energy & Green Economy Act (GEA).

Chin later became embroiled in the “gas plant” scandal as the Premier’s principal contact with the negotiating team dealing with TransCanada et al on compensation issues related to the cancellation. Ontario’s ratepayers know how that turned out! While Chin occupied his position with the OPA, [former executive director of the environmental group Energy Probe] Tom Adams and I were investigating the gas plant scandal by reviewing thousands of documents.

Mr. Gallant goes on:

The following reveals some of our findings in an article I wrote about the “smart grid” and a Brad Duguid directive.

Co-incidentally (noted by Tom Adams), the Duguid directive is dated the same day as the e-mail exchange between Alicia Johnston (formerly a senior political staffer for Energy Minister Brad Duguid, later promoted to the Premier’s Office) and Ben Chin (a senior Ontario Power Authority executive).

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

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am really finding this research fascinating and I have been watching Ben Chin's association with the Christy Clark government in B.C., but I am not yet seeing a connection to the bill we are currently debating. I really find it interesting, and I am not being facetious, but I just realized it had nothing to do with Bill C-97.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

That is a good point of order.

I want to remind the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke that we do have to stay with the topic, and the topic is the budget bill.

I will leave it to the hon. member. I am sure she will bring it back and I am sure she will get there very quickly.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will. The speech is in order because it will be setting the stage and the background for subdivision B of division 9 and subdivision G of division 9. The background is necessary in order to tie it all together.

Mr. Gallant's quote continues:

That e-mail exchange contained Ms Johnston’s suggestion to engage Tyler Hamilton, a contributor to Toronto Star, as an “expert” to counter the Adams and Gallant duo who “are killing me”; Chin agreed. Shortly after, Hamilton received a contract from the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) for a report on the smart grid.

According to former Pollution Probe executive director Tom Adams:

In July 2011, Tyler Hamilton, a Toronto Star journalist then taking government cash under the table to promote its smart grid agenda, published a “news” report in the Toronto Star extolling the relationship between Air Miles and the [Ontario Power Authority]. As usual, Hamilton failed to disclose to his readers his then ongoing financial relation with the Ontario government energy programs.

As revealed through the gas scandal disclosures, in November 2010 Chin had proposed that Hamilton be “engaged for central” to aid with rebutting criticism of the government’s Green Energy and Green Economy Act.

...Chin also described Hamilton’s journalism as part of the intellectual foundation for Ontario’s Green Energy and Green Economy Act.

Ben Chin’s electricity career helps to illuminate the real purposes driving those with their hands on the levers of power in Ontario’s electricity system. Practical solutions to Ontario’s energy problems were never the focus for the team Chin played for. Weaving his way around the in-house and outsourced government sector, Chin was engineering a conservation PR culture. At the same time as the “Count Me In” program was being formulated, Ontario was establishing itself as a massive electricity exporter, selling enough discounted and often free power to neighbouring jurisdictions to power substantial cities. To the extent that the conservation promotions and subsidies Chin worked on actually reduced usage in Ontario, the benefits were mostly captured by neighbour utilities. The conservation PR that Chin was engineering was focused on a different kind of power.

I have more from the Energy Perspectives blog, and then I will be back on this one. It states:

The spin emanating from the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and the Prime Minister himself is not all that different than what we were hearing several years ago during the gas plant scandals days. ...

Those two unelected individuals (Butts and Chin) originally involved in the Ontario electricity muddle now find themselves named as two (out of eleven) of the bullies pressuring [the former justice minister] to grant SNC-Lavalin a DPA (deferred prosecution agreement). In the case of the [Green Energy Act] and the gas plant scandal it took much longer to surface in the public eye than the current [SNC-Lavalin] scandal so it would appear the Chin/Butts team has lost some of the spin abilities they displayed in the past.

From the former attorney general, I quote:

On Sept. 20, my chief of staff had phone calls with Mr. Chin and Justin To, both members of the Minister of Finance’s office, about DPAs and SNC. ...

...Gerry talked to me about how the statute was a statute was passed by [former Conservative prime minister] Harper and that he does not like the law. I said something like that is the law that we have. ...

The foregoing led to the former attorney general saying this:

I will now read to you a transcript of the most relevant sections of a text conversation between my chief of staff and me almost immediately after that meeting.

Jessica: “Basically, they want a solution. Nothing new. They want external counsel retained to give you an opinion on whether you can review the DPP’s decision here and whether you should in this case.... I told them that would be interference. Gerry said, 'Jess, there is no solution here that does not involve some interference.' At least they are finally being honest about what they are asking you to do! Don’t care about the PPSC’s independence. Katie was like 'we don’t want to debate legalities anymore....' They keep being like 'we aren’t lawyers, but there has to be some solution here.' ”

I—MOJAG—texted: “So where were things left?”

Jessica: “So unclear. I said I would of course let you know about the conversation and they said they were going to 'kick the tires' with a few people on this tonight. The Clerk was waiting outside when I left. But they said that they want to set up a call between you and the Prime Minister and the Clerk tomorrow. I said that of course you would be happy to speak to your boss! They seem quite keen on the idea of you retaining an ex Supreme Court of Canada judge to get advice on this. Katie Telford thinks it gives us cover in the business community and the legal community, and that it would allow the Prime Minister to say we were doing something. She was like 'If Jody is nervous, we would of course line up all kinds of people to write OpEds saying that what she is doing is proper.' ”

The foregoing highlights the unmitigated gall of two unelected individuals who, for whatever reasons, see themselves as kingmakers, much as they did for the McGuinty government—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We went through many hours of budget debate. It was then explained that some latitude was given to members in addressing the budget debate. We now have budget implementation legislation. The member, even though she might suggest she will get to that debate, has really not done so.

She has emphasized the issue of character assassination of individuals who cannot defend themselves in the chamber. All we would ask is that the member be relevant to the debate we are supposed to be having today, the budget implementation bill. If she does not have a copy of the bill, we would be more than happy to provide her with more information about the bill.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I would remind the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke that it is about Bill C-97. I understand she is laying down the story, but it is a 20-minute period and 15 minutes have already been taken up. Therefore, for the next five minutes, I am sure she will talk about Bill C-97 and what the budget bill has to offer or not offer.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I paused for a moment to focus on the Prime Minister's chief of staff reference to lining up some amateur journalists to write up some fake news, such as the Ben Chin-Gerald Butts duo that had lined up Tyler Hamilton during the Ontario Green Energy Act. I am saying that what happened then is happening now.

A prominent CBC reporter not only recently confirmed being used to distribute the fake news stories, he followed up with a story about another global warming report, which is being used by the Liberal Party to justify its new carbon tax, while it desperately gropes to change the political channel to the weather channel.

The purpose of this is to put on the record the inner workings of the Prime Minister's Office, as it cynically manipulates some hidden agenda that has nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with another Liberal insider, rich at the expense of ordinary hard-working Canadians.

When it comes to the government's budget implementation bill or the budget itself, nothing is to be believed. In 2019, there is a sense among Canadians that the promise of progress, the idea that with hard work that everyone can build a better life is no longer true.

When we look through the budget implementation bill, we see something very peculiar. We see that subdivision B of division 9 of part 4 would amend the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act to allow for the addition, by regulation, nothing to do with MPs representing their people, of units of measurement for electricity and gas sales and distribution. The Liberals are also amending the Weights and Measures Act to authorize by regulation the use of new units of—

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is Bill C-97. It is the government's much vaunted budget implementation bill. The Liberals have been wondering when we are going to get around to addressing it, but they are not addressing it.

If we take a look around, we see how many people are in the House, how few are on that side—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The member is getting into a point of argument, not a point of order. If the hon. member wants to refer to a point of order, then the rules—

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like you to call a quorum.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I am afraid we are short. Ring the bells.

And the bells having rung:

I believe we have quorum.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke has one minute and 58 seconds remaining.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite curious that in a budget bill, the Liberals are changing the weights, measures and standards, and I will get back to that a little later.

Already there has been feedback from my riding on these budgets. I will read a couple of letters that I received, which directly relate to the budget itself and what is being cast upon Canadians.

The first letter begins with “Dear Minister”, meaning the climate change minister. It states:

“Please send me the forms to apply for a climate change action grant for our recent purchase of a new refrigerator for our home. Be assured we purchased it for the sole purpose of saving our planet from the ravages of global warming. Our new fridge will allow us to stock up on food since the carbon tax has impacted our ability to travel to Renfrew to shop for the necessities of life.”

“I would like to apply for the same grant as Galen Weston of Loblaws, so please send me those forms. We're tired rural Canadian seniors who, although we worked hard, raised a family and paid taxes all our lives, were not able to amass the billions that Galen Weston has. I hope this does not disqualify us from the government corporate welfare handout.”

“If our application is successful, you can tell your corporate friend Mr. Weston—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

There is another point of order by the hon. member for Haldimand—Norfolk.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, despite my last intervention, I again call quorum because I still do not see it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

We do not have quorum. Please ring the bells.

And the bells having rung:

We now have quorum.

The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke has 41 seconds coming her way.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

The letter continues:

“If our application is successful, you can tell your corporate friend Mr. Weston that we will promise to use this government welfare to buy and store only Loblaws bread in our new climate action fridge at whatever price he fixes it at. You can also assure Mr. Weston that if Loblaws is fined for tax evasion, no Trudeau DPA, his dollars will go to a good cause through the trickle-down effect of our new climate change action fridge.”

“I trust that pandering to your friend Mr. Weston will help our application. I look forward to seeing you at the ballot box in October. Thank you. Cheers from Griffith, Ontario.”

I will continue on during questions and comments.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I want to remind hon. members that they are to refer to other members by their position or the ridings they represent in the House and not mention their names.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for London North Centre.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question for the member opposite. She focused just now on issues relating to climate change. Specifically, though, does she believe in climate change? Does she believe in the fact that the planet is getting warmer? Does she believe that human activity is primarily responsible for it? It is a simple yes or no question.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a number of my constituents have commented on that same issue. One said, “Dear [Member]: I am trying awful hard to be nice towards a certain individual who thinks he's the king and ruler of Canada. Can you tell me, since when is it legal to charge a tax on top of a tax? The carbon tax is a tax is it not and if so why do we have to pay the HST on this new tax? Thanks in advance for your reply...”

Throughout the budget and the budget implementation, I have not found the page yet that explains why the government can charge the HST on top of a carbon tax. My constituents want to know.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to ask my colleague a question, and I will not judge the quality of her speech.

I wonder if she would care to comment on the fact that this is the government's last chance to implement its budget plan. This being the spring of 2019, this is probably the last budget implementation bill.

Is she, like me, disappointed that the government did not deliver on its promise to eliminate stock option deductions or at least cap the amount people can claim? As we saw in the budget statement, the benefits disproportionately accrue to the wealthiest Canadians.

Why not address that in the budget implementation bill? What is her opinion on the matter?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not the government yet, so I cannot say why something is or is not in the budget. However, I would like to draw to the attention of landowners in my riding, who are always very interested in what the government is doing, that there is a special subdivision D that would amend the Seized Property Management Act. It goes on to talk about the consultative services and how they will teach more bureaucrats and managers how to seize property. I am wondering if that is in anticipation of more people losing their homes and lands as a consequence of the carbon tax.

I also want to talk about this aspect of amending the Weights and Measures Act and using a different unit of measure for electricity. I am wondering if it has anything to do with the United Nations' move toward having a carbon currency.

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

Mr. Speaker, although it was not the subject of the omnibus budget bill, Bill C-97, I really was fascinated by the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke's search through the individuals who were part of the tentacles of SNC-Lavalin. I have been following this too, and I am very concerned that regardless of what party is in power, it seems to have a full grip.

For instance, I wonder if she could comment on the role of Gwyn Morgan, who was a very strong confidant and supporter of former prime minister Stephen Harper. He was put forward by Stephen Harper to be the chair of the Public Appointments Commission. He of course was the chair of the board of SNC-Lavalin during all of the alleged Libyan affairs, including also being the chair of its board of governance.

Could she also comment on the appointment of Arthur Porter to the highest position of trust in the land, by former prime minister Stephen Harper, to be chair of the review committee for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS? I mention that appointment in relation to SNC-Lavalin because, as we all know now, Arthur Porter was a co-conspirator with SNC-Lavalin in the bribery case involving the Montreal hospital.

My concern, and I wonder if the hon. member shares it, is regardless of who is in the PMO, SNC-Lavalin seems to know who to go to in order to get what it wants.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member is really passionate about the UN, carbon and the atmosphere. She was at the UN back in the 1990s, as she so often tells us. An individual called Judith Hanna wrote for New Scientist. She said that for those keen to slow global warming, the most effective actions were in the creation of strong national carbon currencies.

What I am trying to glean from this budget implementation act is whether that relates to the needed amendment to measure electricity differently, along with other weights and measures. There was a further description of what this carbon currency would look like. With this budget implementation bill, it looks like we are changing the way the whole economy is going to work. It is going to be on an energy based system, as opposed to a market based system.

Further to the issue of creating a strategy for carbon currencies, the U.K. environment secretary, David Miliband, said:

Imagine a country where carbon becomes a new currency. We carry bank cards that store both pounds and carbon points.

When we buy electricity, gas and fuel, we use our carbon points, as well as pounds. To help reduce carbon emissions, the Government would set limits on the amount of carbon that could be used.

Is the government, and this is again something I hope I can glean from this document, working and going toward allocating or rationing energy per individual in the future, at least for the common everyday person? We know that would never apply to the jet-set that can blow carbon into the air with its jet fuel.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a fairly straightforward question. Today is Daffodil Days, which is about hope, educating and encouraging Canadians to give contributions to the Cancer Society. In this budget, there is a $150-million commitment toward the Terry Fox Research Institute.

Could the member indicate whether she supports that initiative?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am so happy that my greatest fan mentioned the daffodil campaign right now. In fact, last week, when I was in the riding, I was sitting in the Scotiabank, collecting donations and providing daffodils to the kind donors.

Many people said that this was all they could give. They were so strapped because of the high taxes. One of the best things we can do is leave money in the pockets of people so they have the money to donate by themselves and they have that spirit of giving, rather than having organizations depend on the government for the handouts when it so feels like giving them.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member had qualms with the Paris Agreement. Her party voted for it and she voted against it. I am wondering if she would like to have a chance to talk about that.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the government is waiting with great anticipation for our leader's unveiling of our environmental plan. There is much reason for that anticipation. We are going to meet whatever standards we need in terms of making sure that the air, the water and our land is free of pollution.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before resuming debate, I want to remind hon. members that for the gentlemen in the Chamber a tie is required when they ask a question. Sometimes even the Speaker overlooks this, but I will be looking out for that in the questions to come.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to add my voice to the debate that just began on Bill C-97, another budget implementation bill from the Liberal government.

I rise for the first time as the finance critic for the New Democratic Party. I thank my leader, the member for Burnaby South, for trusting me and for granting me the privilege of serving in the NDP caucus on issues related to finances and the economy as well as on tax issues, as I already do in my role as critic for national revenue.

I am very pleased to be able to continue the fight for greater social, fiscal and even environmental justice, just as we have been doing for quite some time now. That is extremely important to me.

Unfortunately, I must say, this bill falls quite short of the expectations we had, on this side of the House, as well as the expectations of most Canadians. It falls far short of what we would expect from the Liberal government, which has failed to fulfill the promises it made during the election campaign.

It is all the more disappointing because we are debating the Liberal government's last budget implementation bill. This is the government's last real opportunity to implement its legislative proposals for moving our country forward. I am very disappointed that several of the Liberal government's promised initiatives are not found in this bill. The Liberal government will definitely not keep certain promises. In the next election campaign, the Liberals will have to defend why they are keeping Canadians waiting for beneficial and important measures that would improve the lives of most of our constituents. I am truly disappointed, even though some measures have been implemented.

It is difficult to examine such a huge bill. I will reiterate the comments of my colleague from Vancouver East, who earlier called this an omnibus bill. I, too, consider this to be an omnibus bill because of its nature, the variety of laws affected and the fact that many of these measures are not found in the budget document presented to the House on March 19.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will consider the points my colleague raised to show that this is an omnibus bill that meets the criteria set out in the new rules of the House of Commons.

I hope that parliamentarians will be able to have their say through separate votes, at the very least. This would allow us to make decisions as parliamentarians and do our jobs properly. It is very difficult for a member of Parliament to vote on a wide range of measures. We may agree with some and not others, but at the end of the day we have to make a choice.

We have to choose between measures that may be good but are connected to bad budget measures or bad legislative measures, which means that we are forced to oppose the entire document. I hope that the Chair will decide to divide this bill so that there will be several votes, which would allow us to better represent our constituents on such important issues. I am confident that we will be able to make good decisions.

Moving on from the form of this bill, I would like to talk about the content. This budget misses the mark and is in keeping with the trend we have seen in recent years and more obviously in recent months and days: putting the wealthy and Liberal Party cronies above all else. Lobbyists have direct access to the Prime Minister's Office, and the second they knock at the door or make a call, they get what they want. The office does everything it can to make them happy.

This budget is a continuation of the Liberals' policy to benefit the party's friends, insiders and donors, like SNC-Lavalin and Loblaws, which have joined the list of companies in the Liberal government's good graces. I could also mention KPMG and big pharma, which still have considerable influence in the Prime Minister's Office. Lastly, we cannot forget Kinder Morgan, the big, Houston-based oil company that pocketed $4.5 billion of Canadian taxpayers' money.

These kinds of actions give us a glimpse of a party's and a government's true values. This budget is essentially the continuation of a policy to benefit wealthy insiders. It obviously does not benefit the ordinary Canadians who truly need help. These people are struggling every day, every week and every month to make ends meet.

Pharmacare is one important element that is nowhere to be found in this bill even though it is an obvious and easy solution that people have been talking about for years. The Liberals have been promising pharmacare for over 20 years, but today, the parliamentary secretary talked about doing things the right way, studying the matter before taking action, laying the groundwork to create ideal conditions and setting up an advisory council before creating a universal pharmacare program. They have been promising that for 20 years. No more excuses. This is long overdue, but the government keeps saying that it is too soon to take action on this file because the conditions are not ideal yet.

People in Sherbrooke have talked to me about being unable to get some of their prescription drugs. One of my constituents has to take three drugs prescribed by his doctor, but because he cannot afford all three, he had to ask his pharmacist which one was the most important. That is an everyday reality for people in Sherbrooke and elsewhere in Canada. In this budget implementation bill, the government is telling people they will have to keep waiting even though everyone who has studied the problem agrees on the solutions. The government is still asking people to choose between medication and food or medication and rent.

Sadly, the government lacks the courage of its convictions. It refuses to stand up to the big pharmaceutical and insurance companies that object to this idea. These are the actions that show us where the Liberal government stands, namely on the side of the companies. These companies are resisting efforts to create a pharmacare program, because they see it as a threat to their bottom line. Everyone knows that drug and insurance companies are immensely profitable, and they are afraid of losing some of their market share, which would hurt their profits.

Once again, the Liberals are siding with big business over Canadians, who just want access to quality medication so they can heal and participate fully and actively in the economy. A healthy population means lower costs for the provincial health care systems, which are straining at the seams.

This is another example of the Liberal government's wait-and-see approach and its habit of putting off important decisions. Powerful lobbies are influencing the Prime Minister's Office and shutting down any good ideas that could hurt their bottom line.

Another thing the bill fails to mention is the environment. I brought this up earlier. The environment is the single most important issue for our generation and our society, especially now in 2019. It was already very important, but it is even more critical today. The environment is virtually a non-factor in the bill. As I was saying earlier, this bill is the Liberals' last chance to take a stand before the election, to propose meaningful and hopefully bold legislation. However, with respect to the environment, they are proposing a few paltry measures here and there. They are proposing measures for purchases of electric vehicles and renovation projects. Given the scale of the problem, these measures are grossly insufficient.

This clearly demonstrates that the Liberals are siding with large corporations on this issue. The major oil companies are still getting subsidies, and just recently they benefited from a $4.5-billion cheque. A single company got that big of a cheque from Canadian taxpayers, from the government. Once again, the government is saying that we need to put off any changes to oil subsidies. The Liberals have put that off until later, probably until after the election, if they are lucky enough to get re-elected and if we do not take their place. That is the reality of a wait-and-see government.

The government wants to put off these changes until later. Major lobby groups have been putting pressure on the government. Billionaire oil companies are getting cheques from the government and keeping their subsidies. Bill C-97 would have been a good opportunity to put an end to shameful oil subsidies that are being condemned around the world. Other countries have taken action to end oil subsidies. This is yet another example of a government putting the interests of large corporations above those of ordinary Canadians. Canadians deserve as much attention as the large corporations are getting from the Liberal government.

The most recent example of this is the famous $12-million subsidy. That is a lot of money. We tend to forget sometimes how much money we are really talking about. A significant amount of money, $12 million, was given to a highly profitable company, Loblaws. That is how the government chooses to fight climate change. It invests in companies that have all the money in the world. If there is a grocery store that has the means to buy itself some fridges, it is certainly Loblaws. In every one of our ridings there are grocery stores that are struggling to make ends meet every month. They want to pay their employees well and provide good working conditions. They see the government caving to pressure from multinationals like Loblaws and giving them the money they need to replace their refrigerators. It is so frustrating for taxpayers, businesses, small grocers, or any business that wants to become greener and invest in improving their energy efficiency, to see that corporations are the ones getting the subsidies to upgrade their refrigerators. It is the right thing to do, but the government chose the wrong target.

I also want to mention some of the proposed measures in the budget that are just half-measures. In some cases, it might be a step in the right direction. However, in other cases, the government again hits the wrong target.

There is the home buyers plan, which allows home buyers to withdraw some money from their RRSPs to invest in buying a house. The government told us that this measure will help millennials access home ownership. We recognize the importance of encouraging access to home ownership. In fact, we also proposed something to that effect in the past few weeks.

The national housing crisis must be addressed. It is clearly an important and serious issue for our country. The Liberals' solution involves expanding the home buyers' plan, allowing people to withdraw $10,000 more from their RRSPs to use as a down payment, raising the limit from $25,000 to $35,000.

Maybe some of my colleagues had young people in their ridings come and knock on their doors to say that $25,000 from their RRSPs was not enough and they needed more, $35,000, in order to buy a house. That makes no sense.

Perhaps some members will tell me that happened to them, but most young people who come to see me are not telling me they need more money from their RRSPs. They are telling me that they simply do not have any money to put towards a down payment, that they simply cannot afford to buy a house. It is not about their RRSPs or how much they can withdraw. I do not know how the Liberals came up with that solution. On top of that, they claim to be targeting millennials.

This may benefit some people who want to buy their first property, but it is certainly not something that will help millennials, given that statistics show that only 35% of them have RRSPs. It makes no sense to target this measure at millennials.

The bill also amends the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. This clearly does not meet the expectations of many unions and stakeholders involved in this important file, who want pensions to be protected from unscrupulous executives who will do anything to get their hands on as much money as possible before declaring bankruptcy.

What the government failed to do in this bill was change the creditors' priority ranking. It was the government's last chance to change creditors' order of priority in a budget implementation bill. It was an opportunity to put employees, their pensions, their salaries and their benefits first in the priority ranking. However, the government again chose to side with big business and lobbyists, who argued that it would not be good for the economy. They told the government not to give priority to employees because it would stifle investment. The government always gives in to these types of arguments by lobbyists who knock at the Prime Minister's door. Sears executives would like us to believe that they acted in good faith. That was another missed opportunity.

Another missed opportunity here has to do with student debt. The government says it will postpone collecting interest on student debt. That is how the government plans to help students drowning in debt once they complete their studies.

The government could support those students and help them become homeowners, as mentioned earlier, but no, students will continue to pay interest on their students loans, on what they owe the federal government. The government had one last opportunity to do something but missed it.

The Liberals are squandering their last chance. They are going to tell Canadians to wait a bit longer, but I think the last four years have proven to Canadians that whatever the Liberals say during a campaign is not worth much at all. The Liberals have had four years to make these changes and deliver on their promises, but they have clearly failed to do so. They have helped the rich at the expense of ordinary Canadians who really need help. It is a great shame those ordinary Canadians must suffer the consequences. The government is telling them to keep holding their breath.

That is unfortunate and is the reason why Canadians will have to choose another economic vision, another vision for our country, a vision for an energy transition, a true vision for the environment, a true vision for pharmacare, a true vision for housing, a true vision for helping people who are really in need. Canadians are going to have to choose people who will stand up to the big oil and economic interests of multinationals, which try to get everything they want from the Prime Minister's Office. Canadians will have people who stand with them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his rather interesting speech. He seems to be very knowledgeable about the budget, and I must congratulate him for speaking about all the good things that the Liberals put in the budget to help Canadians. However, he said that it was not enough. He stated that we did not do enough for the environment, for example. He said that the measures for zero-emission vehicles were well received, but insufficient. Then he stated that people could not afford their medications, but he mentioned that we created an agency to negotiate the price of drugs, which will save $3 million a year.

I liked the things he mentioned. Since he stated that it is still not enough, could my colleague tell us what would be enough? The opposition keeps repeating that we have good measures that will help Canadians, but that they are not enough. Can he tell us if there is anything that lives up to his expectations?

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

No, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, it is nowhere near enough.

My colleague himself admits that the government is taking half-measures and that it can do better. He knows that realistic and documented solutions exist, but that the government lacks the courage to implement them. That is the problem. Although there are good ideas out there and they are well documented, the people in the Prime Minister's Office are kowtowing to the powerful lobbies of this world that are preventing the Liberal government from making progress. We saw that in the SNC-Lavalin affair. That is just one example among so many that show that the government is still serving the country's major economic and financial interests. When it comes to making the right decisions, the Liberals take half-measures to have us believe that they did something when they know full well that they are not doing enough.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that in this case, I also appreciated the speech made by my colleague from Sherbrooke. I agree with him, much to the chagrin of my colleague from Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook.

As the member for Sherbrooke said, this budget is dragging up broken promises, such as the promise to return to a balanced budget this year, which is rather unbelievable. It does not even include a timeline for balancing the budget. This is a first in our country's history.

The government is budgeting $41 billion to deflect attention from its mistakes, including its bungled foreign and domestic policy. Once again, the budget favours the major interest groups, as the member for Sherbrooke pointed out. We saw more evidence of this today, when the government gave Loblaws $12 million for refrigerators. It is absolutely ridiculous.

Does my colleague from Sherbrooke agree that this budget shows a lack of respect for Quebeckers?

In 2015, the member for Papineau, the Prime Minister, told a New York newspaper that Canada was postnational. This is an outright affront to Quebeckers, whose historical and political reality is very much alive and well.

There are also no measures in this bill to address the Quebec premier's concerns about the cost of the arrival of a huge number of illegal refugees. I know he does not like that term, but Quebec wants to be reimbursed for some of those costs. There is also nothing in the budget about a single tax return or the Quebec Bridge, and there is nothing to address the discriminatory measure wherein larger cities will get more money for sustainable mobility infrastructure than smaller ones like Quebec City.

Does my colleague agree that the 2019 budget implementation bill once again shows the government's lack of respect for all our fellow Quebeckers?

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

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is yes, absolutely.

The federal government quite simply ignored some very specific demands from the Government of Quebec. The member mentioned a few files. This clearly shows that the Prime Minister could care less about Quebec's requests, even though he had a private meeting with the new premier. That is nothing new. The Prime Minister is not going to start acting differently because Quebec has a new government. He has always had very little respect for Quebec and the demands of Quebeckers, unlike the NDP, which recognizes the Quebec nation, its autonomy and its ability to make decisions in its best interests in areas under its jurisdiction.

That is the reality within certain parties in the House that think they are always right and want to impose their ideas on the rest of the country. Other parties, like the NDP, recognize Quebec's specificity and the fact that it needs to be recognized not only in words but also through actions. It is important to be open to requests from Quebec and to listen carefully to Quebeckers. What we are seeing these days is 40 or so phantom MPs of the Liberal Party. No one really knows where they are or what they are doing. Any time Quebec asks for something, they seem to disappear. They are invisible, they have nothing to say, they are gone. Maybe that is symptomatic of being a member from Quebec who does nothing for Quebec.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to agree with my hon. friend's comment that there are many shortcomings. One interesting one I was looking at, and one my colleague mentioned in his speech, was about the BIA and the CCAA under bankruptcy protection.

The Liberals promised that they were going to fix this and were going to have consultations. The experts gave the government some ideas on how to make sure that workplace health benefits would not be taken away anymore during bankruptcy protection. They also recommended that the government have a pension guarantee fund. They also wanted pensioners to be considered secured creditors and not unsecured creditors.

It was interesting to read what those experts gave the government as great recommendations. They told the government the best way to do it, and it required everyone involved to act in good faith. That is on page 67. That is how the government is going to fix the act. That is how we are going to keep pensioners from being ripped off.

Does my friend agree that this is a great way to fix the act to make sure that pensioners across Canada will no longer be ripped off, with just a handshake and people acting in good faith? I would like his comments, please.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his work on this issue and his expertise in the area of bankruptcy and insolvency.

Very few changes are ever made to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, an important piece of legislation that is exclusively under federal jurisdiction and that governs bankruptcies in this country. The government had an opportunity to make a real difference, to propose more meaningful changes than the ones brought forward in Bill C-97. It could have put creditors first, including the employees and pensioners of companies, in order to prevent any more problems such as the ones we saw at Nortel, Sears or companies in my colleague's riding from ever happening again. This is another opportunity missed by this government. This government says all the right things and makes all kinds of promises, but the results fall far short of the expectations and recommendations of experts, as my colleague pointed out. Experts have looked closely at these matters and are familiar with the reality. That is true of my colleague, who is known to be somewhat of an expert in this area.

This is another missed opportunity for the government, which is just relying on the good faith of these companies' administrators and trustees to properly distribute all of the bankruptcy assets and pay the creditors their due. This is an inadequate measure that falls well short of what experts and leaders in this field were hoping for.

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

Mr. Speaker, in so many ways I disagree with my colleague and friend's debate during his 20 minutes.

The Liberal Party and the Prime Minister, back in the last election, made it very clear that the first priority was going to be Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be part of it. Virtually from day one, from the very first piece of legislation we introduced right up to this budget, it has all been about ensuring that we have a healthier economy and that we continue to build Canada's middle class. Whether it is tax cuts, negotiations with provinces on the legislative agenda or the enhancement of the GIS and the Canada child benefit, there have been numerous policies. The NDP, more often than not, has actually debated them out, voted against and resisted many of those progressive changes.

I anxiously await the next election, when this government is going to be able to go to the population and say how we have delivered on what we told Canadians we would in terms of our first priority.

I wonder if the member opposite might have some remorse that on many of the progressive actions this government has taken, the NDP continuously voted against them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no remorse about voting against the changes they proposed. These changes do not benefit the middle class.

The Liberals' definition of middle class is people who earn $180,000 a year. Those people are the ones benefiting the most from the so-called middle-class tax cut. People earning less than $45,000 a year did not get a cent from this government.

The big problem with the Liberal government is that they think people who earn $180,000 a year are part of the middle class. Those are the people the government made it a priority to help.

The House resumed consideration from April 10 of the motion that Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to say that the budget is probably the most important instrument that the government can present every year. I am very disappointed that we were not able to hear the Minister of Finance give his speech. The following week, many of my constituents told me how much they deplored missing the opportunity to hear the speech. Therefore, I would like to clarify a few things for Canadians today and for the people of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook.

My presentation on the budget today touches on a number of themes. The first one, of course, is veterans, followed by seniors, youth, housing—which is extremely important—and black Canadians. I will also, of course, make reference to my riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook.

With regard to veterans, we have made some big changes, and they are really important to note.

The first part is about transition. Transition has been a challenge for all governments. The objective is to make it as seamless as possible. We have expanded the coverage and support in the transition formula to non-injured veterans. Previously, it was only for injured veterans, but now it includes non-injured veterans. We have also established a guide that will help veterans to follow the process in their My VAC Account, which is extremely important. This is one piece.

We have also expanded education and training benefits, which is another important aspect. We have expanded this to included the reservists. This is important, because it is something veterans have been talking about.

We have also invested monies for the recognition and commemoration of Métis veterans. I am on the veterans affairs committee. I had the opportunity to go across Canada to speak to many Métis veterans who fought for our great country, which is extremely important.

Finally, I have advocated personally in the last couple of years to ensure that we have what some call a new survivor fund for veterans' families for when a veteran passes. I do not know if members are aware of this, but if a veteran marries after age 60 and passes, his family does not have access to a percentage of his pension or to benefits. This is something our government has put into the bill. It is really important and would be much appreciated by many of my colleagues.

Let us now talk about youth, the young people of Canada. What we brought forward for them in this budget is quite impressive.

Two years ago, we talked about the idea that they would not have to pay back their student loans until they made $25,000 a year or more. That was a big help, and young people have mentioned it several times to me.

Now we have also taken out the interest rate for the first six months so that they do not have to pay it for six months after they graduate, which is crucial. In addition, after six months, instead of having to pay prime plus 2.5%, they will pay prime.

I would like to note that I am sharing my time with the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.

What is also very important for young people is the first-time homebuyers' tax credit. This provides an opportunity for young people to get into the housing market. It is quite impressive. When young people buy a house for $400,000 and they put 5% down, that is $20,000. However, there would be a shared equity investment for another 10%, which equals $40,000. Therefore, a house for which they would have had a mortgage of $380,000 only needs a mortgage of $340,000. What does that represent? That represents a savings of $228 per month for 25 years. That is very important.

We have made some great investments as well in the construction of new rental units. We will have 84,000 new units.

Let us talk about seniors. Between 2011 and 2016, my riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook had the greatest increase in the number of seniors in Nova Scotia. It is extremely important that we do more to support our seniors. We have the new horizons program, which supports community-based projects. Seniors can submit an application for investment support for equipment, programs and transportation. There are all kinds of great opportunities around that.

One of the most important things that many seniors ask about is how can they keep more money in their pockets. Some seniors work part time; that is a good thing, because the economy needs more people in the workforce, but they may make $100 on the one hand but lose $100 on the other hand. Our government made some major changes to the GIS. Before now, there was 100% exemption on earnings up to $3,500; now that exemption would go up to $5,000. There is also a 50% exemption on the next $10,000. Seniors are seeing a $6,500 differential. They will get to keep more money in their pockets, and that is what it is all about.

Let us talk about health. Health is the number one priority in Nova Scotia. Up to 26% of Nova Scotians have underlined clearly that health is their first and most important priority. In the health accord, our government not only increased funding but added funding for mental health and home care, which allows seniors to remain longer in their homes if that is what they wish to do. That is very important.

As well, we are building the foundation for a national pharmacare program. We have created a Canadian drug agency that will be responsible for negotiating better prices for drugs in all provinces and territories. This should save up to $3 billion a year, which is quite impressive.

We have a national strategy for rare diseases. Many Canadians face health challenges with rare diseases, and the cost is extremely high. We are going to increase coverage to support those individuals and their families in paying for their extremely expensive drugs.

Our government is investing some money into a national strategy for dementia. It is not that the disease is getting worse, but rather that more Canadians are living longer and are therefore facing challenges, including dementia challenges.

The last piece is about Ready, Willing and Able, an organization in Nova Scotia that supports individuals with intellectual disabilities or autism spectrum disorder. It is looking to get into partnership co-op programs. These individuals do some great work and contribute to the economy, which is important. Companies like Air Canada, Costco and Shoppers Drug Mart hire many of these individuals.

I have already talked about housing, but let me mention that for first-time homebuyers there is an increase in the permitted RRSP withdrawal from $25,000 to $35,000. That is very important.

We have invested in the construction of rental units. With the Speaker of the Nova Scotia legislature, Kevin Murphy—who is a former student of mine—I announced 13 units a couple of weeks ago in Porters Lake, Nova Scotia. I am waiting for many more announcements to be made in Nova Scotia and in my riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook.

To conclude, our government has invested in black Canadians. I have in my riding the biggest indigenous black community in Canada. I also have in my riding the biggest black cultural centre in Canada. We are leaders. We have received investments and capital assistance for various projects and we also have community-based projects that will come forward on anti-racism.

Budget 2019 is a great budget. I am very proud of it, and the community of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, my province of Nova Scotia and in fact all of Canada will benefit from it.

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

Madam Speaker, the member raised the issue of a shared equity position that the Government of Canada is proposing CMHC would have for first-time homebuyers. However, he neglected to mention that it is based on income. The maximum someone could receive under the program is four times their income, and in the member's own riding, the median income is just under $30,000. That is not a lot for someone to be able to borrow on and to move forward.

Does he not believe that in areas like his across the country, this amount would not be enough to even support someone, let alone if they actually want to be in partnership with the government and have it as a stakeholder in their home?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his comments and his question. I am happy to tell him that this is a program that did not exist in the previous 10 years. We have to start somewhere.

We are trying to help first-time homebuyers. Yes, it goes on the average, but keep mind that is still getting a piece of that pie. It will help people right across the country, based on income, and that 10% will still come down as a shared equity to help get that first home, which is crucial.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I spent three happy years in Nova Scotia. It is a beautiful province.

As I recall, the member mentioned that health care is a big priority for his constituents. Given that it is also a top priority not only in my constituency but across my province, I wonder if he could speak to the fact that his government chose not to introduce a national pharmacare program, despite the fact that over many decades, every commission has recommended to move now on pharmacare and that an all-party committee unanimously recommended introducing pharmacare now.

Why was that? It was because the Parliamentary Budget Officer has done an analysis showing that it is the most cost-effective way to proceed in making sure that affordable pharmaceuticals are available to everyone.

I wonder if the member could speak to that fact. Is he not disappointed and will his constituents not be disappointed that his government chose not to introduce pharmacare, which would have made those medicines available to all of his constituents at an affordable rate?

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

Madam Speaker, in my mind, pharmacare is a very important national strategy that we need to move forward on as soon as possible. Again, in the 10 years that the Conservative Party was in power, there was no talk about moving on that important agenda.

Stephen Frank, the president and CEO of the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association said:

We’re grateful that the government is listening to what Canadians say they want for national pharmacare--an approach that covers everyone, but that doesn’t result in people losing the workplace benefits they currently have.

That is what they are saying on the ground, and it is very important that are supporting it.

However, we have a report that is going to come out in May or June, and I believe that this final report will be the final piece to get a full pharmacare program in Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure and privilege to hear my colleague speak both official languages.

Three and a half years ago, my colleague and some 180 other MPs were elected under the Liberal Party banner after making some very specific promises. On page 30 the electoral platform, they stated that they would run modest deficits for the first three years and then it would be a zero-deficit year.

I have a very simple question for the hon. member. What is the deficit for 2019-20, the year the Liberals promised to run a zero deficit?

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

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

He has to understand that we Liberals are investing in Canadians. At home we might decide to borrow money to buy a house, a car, or something else. We are investing $150 million and Canadians created 900,000 jobs. That is going to generate the revenue that will help pay down consumer debt.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am thrilled to rise to speak to Bill C-97, an act that would begin implementing budget 2019, a budget that builds on three and a half years of our government's hard work, a budget that shows our strong commitment to building a better Canada, a more inclusive Canada and a more economically prosperous Canada. That prosperity can be seen at home in Atlantic Canada and I am proud of the record investments our government is delivering for my region. Never have I seen a prime minister and numerous ministers pay such close attention and respect to the region.

It is no secret that Atlantic Canada experienced a decade of Conservative cuts and closures under Stephen Harper. We had a prime minister in Canada who made his feelings toward that region very clear. Atlantic Canada, Stephen Harper believed, was a culture of defeat. I can say first-hand that Atlantic Canadians are proud and hard-working. They are innovators and, in fact, game-changers. Atlantic Canadians overwhelmingly stood up against Stephen Harper's disdain for their region and sent a strong message in 2015 that they had had enough. We will not forget how the Conservatives treated Atlantic Canada.

Under the Conservatives' current leader, just a short while ago, we watched the Conservatives vote against funding for ACOA, the economic driver for Atlantic Canada. We watched them vote against funding for veterans, health care and so many things that are so important to Atlantic Canadians. I can say that this budget, just like our previous budgets, is very good for Atlantic Canada because we believe in Atlantic Canadians.

The best part of my job is seeing the economic decisions our government has made benefit my home riding of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. We know that our investments in the middle class are working. Since November 2015, Canadians have created over 900,000 new jobs and most are full time. Now the unemployment rate is at the lowest rate in more than 40 years.

Our investments in the middle class are complemented by our commitment to investment in small business. That is why it is important to us to create the type of environment where small businesses can flourish, grow and employ more Atlantic Canadians. We have lowered the small business tax from 11% to 9% and made numerous regulatory changes to remove the red tape that was holding businesses back. We can see the difference it is making across the country, especially in Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.

There has never been a better time to live in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. The city is experiencing strong growth and innovation. We can feel the opportunity around us. Downtown Dartmouth is now the trendiest part of the municipality, with restaurants like The Canteen, Battery Park, Portland Street Crêperie, Stone Pizza, Humble Pie Kitchen, Souper Duper Soup, Yeah Yeahs Pizza and so many more. My favourite thing to do on the weekend is visit the Alderney Landings Farmers' Market. I grab a cup of coffee from Port City, grab a few things from some of the local vendors and listen to a little live local music. I always see folks hopping off the Halifax ferry to the Dartmouth side to attend the farmers' market.

All around Portland Street, entrepreneurs are breathing new life into the community with shops like Grund Designer Goldsmith, Janet's Flowers, New Scotland Clothing, Strange Adventures and so many more. Of course, there is Kept, Room 152, Custom Curves and Audrey's Little Shop of Plants, arguably the coolest name for a business ever, and that growth extends right into Cole Harbour. North Brewing will be opening soon on Cole Harbour Road. We have wonderful restaurants like Jamieson's, the Palladium, the Brass Rail and the brand new East Coast Dumpling House. The list goes on.

Dartmouth is also home to lots of great craft breweries, from Nine Locks to Spindrift, Brightwood to New Scotland and we cannot forget Lake City Cider. Plus there are amazing breweries and distilleries right across Nova Scotia. This budget finally proposes that the government remove federal barriers to the interprovincial trade of alcohol so that our breweries can continue to grow.

Budget 2019 makes strategic investments in programs and services that will create long-lasting, positive impacts on the community. From the new El training benefit to the national dementia strategy, our investments will make a difference in the lives of Canadians.

With some programs, it can be hard to see the direct impact that they have on the lives of Canadians. However, with Ready, Willing and Able, we can visit with entrepreneurs across Canada and see the positive impact the program is having in their lives and in their communities. Ready, Willing and Able helps create employment opportunities for persons with autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disabilities. Some time ago, I had a chance to meet with Iain, the incredible young entrepreneur behind Dartmouth, Nova Scotia's Iain's Tartan Bakery. Iain bakes delicious gluten-free and dairy-free baked goods. We can usually find his breads and his sweets at the Alderney Landing Farmers' Market.

This program matters. It is why all of our members of Parliament in Nova Scotia rallied around this program and advocated very hard for its inclusion in budget 2019. This budget includes a $12-million investment in Ready, Willing and Able so it can continue to create good employment opportunities for persons with autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disabilities.

With Canada's economy among the fastest growing in the G7, it is important that all Canadians have the opportunities that they need to succeed. The Nova Scotia Association of Realtors has advocated for stronger resources so more Nova Scotians can make home ownership an attainable goal. That is why we introduced the new first-time homebuyer incentive that will make home ownership more affordable for first-time buyers.

I firmly believe that national pharmacare would save the Province of Nova Scotia a significant amount of money that could be used to improve health care services in our province. As members know, I am a strong supporter of national pharmacare and our government is taking crucial steps toward making this a reality. We believe that no one in Canada should have to choose between paying the rent or paying for the prescription drugs that they need.

We know that good, strong, local infrastructure can make all the difference in our communities. As a former municipal councillor, I understand that municipalities are best placed to understand the infrastructure needs of their communities on the ground. Budget 2019 includes a game-changer for the Halifax Regional Municipality. Through this budget, HRM would receive a top-up of more than $26 million through the federal gas tax fund delivered this year. This is huge because the funds can be used for local infrastructure priorities like waste water, drinking water, cultural and tourism projects, and much more. It is a massive opportunity for our municipality and I cannot wait to see what projects are built with this funding.

Organizations like Nourish Nova Scotia have been advocating for a national school food program for some time. Recently, I visited Dartmouth South Academy and saw first-hand the difference that these programs make in the lives of our children. The budget includes a commitment for a national food policy, and I am excited that the budget also calls for the development of a national school food program.

As many folks in Dartmouth—Cole Harbour know too well, we must take action to protect pensions in Canada. Budget 2019 proposes the introduction of significant legislative amendments to make insolvency proceedings fairer and more transparent for pensioners and workers.

Low-income seniors want to know that they can work part time without worrying about their GIS being clawed back, which is why I am glad to see that the budget proposes an enhancement to the guaranteed income supplement that would provide increased take-home pay for low-income working seniors.

This budget is good for Canadians. I firmly believe that our investments in health care and our decision to move forward with national pharmacare will be a game-changer for my home province of Nova Scotia. Instead of austerity and cuts, we chose to invest in Canadians. We chose to invest in the middle class, in small businesses and in good, local infrastructure priorities. This budget is about making sure that all Canadians have the ability to succeed now and into the future.

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

Madam Speaker, what does the member think about the fact that the Prime Minister promised to balance the budget in the fourth fiscal year and has not balanced the budget? I would like to know if he made the same promise to his constituents and how his constituents feel about the failure to keep that promise.

We heard yesterday in question period the Prime Minister talk about the importance of honesty and truthfulness during election campaigns, and I agree. Therefore, how does the member feel about the Prime Minister's dishonesty, and did he repeat that same promise to his constituents in the last election?

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Madam Speaker, in 2015, Canadians had a choice. They could continue cutting and continue with austerity. We chose, at a very important time in Canada's history, to invest in Canada, to invest in Canadians, to rebuild this country and to give people an opportunity. Those folks who were trying to better their lives needed a leg up. We gave them that leg up. We invested in Canada. We invested in Canadians. I am proud to say I see that investment every day in Nova Scotia, in Atlantic Canada and in Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.

I will tell members a little story. There is a company in my riding that several years ago had six employees. Three or four years ago it had 60. Today, it has 130. When I asked it what its biggest impediment was, it was getting more workforce. It can hire more because we created the environment for that business to grow, to flourish and to hire more Nova Scotians.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend across the floor, and I do consider him a friend, for his speech. At times when he was making his speech, I thought we were speaking about my bill, Bill C-281, to establish a national local food day, which of course was supported unanimously by the House and is now in the Senate.

During the election the last time around, as well as this time, I called myself a “liberal-minded, environmentally green, fiscally conservative NDPer”. However, I finished with the NDP because I truly believe that it has the best vision for Canada. That vision includes affordable housing, affordable child care, certainly universal public pharmacare and eventually, I hope, becoming a tuition-free country. Those are the fundamental things that I think will make Canada better.

However, this budget does not go nearly as far as it should at getting to any of those things that I think will really make Canada better. Therefore, I would be interested in my friend's comments on the disappointment that certainly the people in my riding of Kootenay—Columbia feel with respect to the budget.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for the question. I certainly appreciate sitting on the environment committee with you. You bring so much to our committee and I thank you—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member needs to address his comments and questions to the Chair and not to the individual members.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Madam Speaker, let me just say that I really admire the member and appreciate the time that we spend on our committee together.

The member touched on a bunch of things in that question. I want to talk a bit more about the national school food program. I had a chance to go to the newest school in the riding and see the volunteers who provide breakfast and lunch programs every day for the young students in the P to 9 age groups. The looks on the children's faces when they were in line getting food is why it is so important that we come up with a program where every Canadian child in school has the opportunity to have a healthy breakfast. The volunteers are doing the work. It is now time that we come up with a national program for this, because it is so important. I saw that in the eyes of those young children.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak about the budget.

This is the fourth budget to which I have had an opportunity to speak. Each budget tends to have its own flavour, and I like to give them nicknames. In 2016, it was a shopping spree budget. In 2017, it was a virtue-signalling budget. In 2018, it was a nothing burger budget.

If I had to give a name to the 2019 budget, I would call it the recap budget. It is 460 pages long, but in actual fact if we took away everything that was just re-announced, then it would probably only be about 60 pages.

I will try to provide my usual balanced perspective today. I will talk about things in the budget that I am not happy about. Then I will talk about the things that I think would be good for Canadians. Then I will try to bring some helpful suggestions forward on what should really happen to the budget in the future.

First, I was dismayed to see that once again there are huge deficits going on in perpetuity under the Liberal government. The Prime Minister was elected on a promise to Canadians that he would run small deficits of $10 billion and that he would return to balance this year. However, $19.8 billion will be the deficit this year, and that goes on and on.

Why does that matter to Canadians? We have to pay interest on that debt, which is currently $15 billion, the debt we have picked up so far, and it will be $26 billion if we continue at the pace described in the budget.

Let us think about what we could do with $26 billion, such as repairing some of the hospital infrastructure that is missing across the country or spending on palliative care, about which I am passionate. Let us think about what we could do with the $25 billion that currently will pay interest on a debt that is never-ending.

I definitely am not happy to see that we are still in deficit-spending mode.

That said, I think Canadians understand that from time to time, if there is something worth buying, they might take a mortgage on a house or sometimes run up their credit card if an interesting trip comes around. They understand that if they are getting something for it, there might be a point.

However, what are we really getting for these huge deficits that are proposed in budget 2019?

First, from a health care perspective, we are not getting very much. There was an incredible amount of hype in anticipation of the budget. The media was told that this would be a pharmacare budget and that people would be impressed. Everybody was all hyped up. Canadians believe that people who cannot afford their medications ought to be able to get it. Our universal health care system is about that. Canadians would like to see that.

What did the Liberals put in the budget for pharmacare? No money. There were $35 million to create another bureaucracy to add to the PMPRB, CADTH and the pCPA drug approval processes that already exist, that are arguably very long and very costly. That is not going to give medications to anybody in Canada. It is not going to do a thing.

This is after the health committee studied pharmacare for two years. It gave very reasonable recommendations about how different options would be available to help fill the gap for people who could not afford their medications. That was a real miss on the part of the government. It is clear that Eric Hoskins missed his deadline when it came to the pharmacare report that was supposed to be delivered in March, in time for the budget. That is probably why there was absolutely nothing in the budget.

One thing that is good is the money for rare diseases, $500 million a year. We know that one in 20 Canadians has a rare disease, so everyone can relate to a family member who has to spend, in some cases, up to $1 million a year for these medications. Something definitely needs to be done. However, it will be put out in year 2022. That means it is another election promise.

If the Liberals get elected, then they will put $500 million out in 2022. What is the Liberal record on keeping election promises: running small deficits, balancing the budget within the mandate and restoring home mail delivery, no; last election under first past the post, no; no more omnibus bills, okay. I could go on and on about the broken promises. Putting it in the budget and putting out that far means there is nothing concrete for Canadians. However, we need a solution of that nature.

Another big miss in the budget has to do with the Liberal government's response to the opioid crisis. This has been going on since the Liberals were elected. Four thousand people died last year. We just finished a health committee tour across the country. We looked at the methamphetamine and opioid crisis to see where the gaps in the system were. A lot of information is available. What did the government decide? We have heard there is not enough affordable housing, not enough mental health aids for supporting the healing from the trauma that causes people to get addicted and not enough recovery spots. We know people have to wait between six months and two years to get a recovery spot. Winnipeg and Vancouver are epicentres of this crisis.

Instead, the government has allocated $6 million a year to buy the addicts safe prescriptive opioids. That is the government's answer to this. People are dying. We know we need solutions on the prevention side, on the recovery side and we need affordable housing. The government has been all talk and no action on affordable housing for nearly four years now.

The Liberals recognized the need immediately and started to talk about it. However, we are still talking about it and these are the dying days of the Liberal government. Where is the affordable housing that people need? Homelessness is one of the key factors that contribute to people being addicted. Again, it is very disappointing. Although the Liberals recognize there is a crisis, the response to the crisis is inadequate.

That is the same story on suicide. We know we have a suicide crisis. We know we need prevention, especially in indigenous populations and in the north, among young people, among middle-age men. The budget allocates $5 million a year. If we divide that among 338 ridings in the country, that is less than $15,000 per riding to address suicide prevention. What are we going to do with that? It is another case where the government recognizes there is a problem, but has come in with a totally inadequate response.

There is another key miss on the health file. The health committee finished a study on diabetes. Eleven million Canadians have diabetes or are pre-diabetes. This is one of the most costly diseases in our system. We having an aging demographic, one in six seniors right now and one in four seniors within six to 10 years. People are moving more and more to chronic disease because of obesity, nutrition, lack of exercise, but what is being done about it?

Diabetes Canada came to us with a very cohesive plan, the 360 plan. The health committee reviewed the plan. One of our recommendations to the health minister was that the plan be adopted. However, it is nowhere in the budget, not a dime for addressing diabetes, which is a huge cost and huge struggle for many Canadians. Once again, it is a total miss.

I used to be the chair of the Status of Women. When I look at budgets, l like to look at them through a gender lens. The government does a lot of virtue signalling on the fact that we have a feminist Prime Minister, although with the way he has been treating women in his caucus and cabinet of late that is arguable.

Let us look at some of the key things that show the Liberals are all talk and no action. When I was first elected, I was put on a special committee to study pay equity. We made recommendations to the government. The government agreed that it would come in with legislation that would address pay equity in the federal government sector for which it had control. How many dollars are available in budget 2019 to address pay equity? Zero dollars and zero legislation. Once again, it is all talk and no action on that file. That is too bad because a lot of women's issues really do need to be addressed.

Two nice things are in the budget. One has to do with addressing ovarian cancer. There has been a lack of research in the area of ovarian cancer and it is one of the top reasons that women die. I was pleased to see that in the budget.

However, if we look at research spending as a whole through a gender lens, about 3% of the research dollars go toward anything that will impact women. The government should put on its gender-lens glasses again and take a look at what the balance is and whether it is really addressing issues that are so important to women.

One other good thing that I see in the budget has to do with organ donation. One of the members of the Standing Committee on Health, the member for Calgary Confederation, brought forward a private member's bill to give people the opportunity to organ donate by declaring it every year on their tax returns. It would be a very easy way of allowing people to do that. The government agreed and put money in this budget to facilitate increasing the number of organ donors. This will save lives. After the Humboldt tragedy, there was a huge increase in the number of organ donors, which saved many lives.

There are some areas where taxes have been taken off, such as for fertility services. I think people would agree that medically necessary services should not be taxed. The government is a little hypocritical on this file. When it comes to medical marijuana, it has put a 15% on that. People who are suffering are having to pay a lot of extra money. The government cannot just pick and choose which medical services should not be taxed. It should be consistent in its approach. If it believes that medicines and medical treatments should not be taxed, then it has to be consistent across the board.

Let us move on to infrastructure. There was a delightful little nugget that said we would get $2 billion of actual money in this year being spent for municipalities for infrastructure. While we may say that is very good news, we should remember that $15 billion was taken away from municipalities from the infrastructure fund for the repair roads and bridges and it was put into an infrastructure bank that would do projects. It is only doing one project, which is coincidentally being done with SNC-Lavalin.

Therefore, to give $2 billion back after taking $15 billion away still means the government took $13 billion from municipalities for building roads and infrastructure. It is woefully inadequate and certainly not doing anything in the Infrastructure Bank.

It would be great if the government returned more money to people in ridings like my own. I was disappointed to not see any money to repair the Sombra ferry boarding crossing in my riding. I have been speaking about this. It has now been over year that this border crossing has been closed because of the damage done by Coast Guard vessels breaking ice and crushing the causeway.

We need $2 million to fix this problem, restore a border crossing and restore the opportunity to increase trade with the U.S., which is on the other side. I represent a border riding. The government can find $12 million to give to Loblaws, but it cannot find $2 million for Sarnia—Lambton to open a border crossing. It is absolutely distressing.

We also have a trade corridor project, which was not funded in this budget. I hope that can be remediated. I would like to give the government chance to reconsider. That project would create 3,000 well-paying jobs in my riding, and the cost would be $6 million. Again, the government can find $12 million to give to Loblaws to put in freezers, a company that made $3 billion in profit and can afford it. However, on the other hand, there is a project in my riding that needs $6 million to create 3,000 jobs and that was not funded in the budget.

Palliative care is always something I love to talk about. I was pleased to see the government come with a palliative care framework after my private member's bill, and that spending is beginning. It is starting to fund training for paramedics, for example, to administer palliative care in their off-emergency hours. It is a very efficient way to get care to people, which is also a benefit to the people who have difficulties travelling to receive treatment.

However, there are a lot of things that should have been funded that are not. What about hospices? Canada has about 100 hospices compared to 1,300 in the U.S. There is a real opportunity to partner with communities and build hospices so people can get the palliative care they need. We know that 70% of Canadians have nothing. They have no opportunity for palliative care.

Another enabler for palliative care is broadband Internet. Therefore, I was glad to see a recognition that more spending was needed with respect to broadband Internet.

I had projects in my riding that we applied for in the first year I was elected that we have heard nothing about. We have continually asked the government to address that and it has not. I am not sure who will be the beneficiaries, but I would guess that it will be Liberal ridings.

We can then talk about the parts of the budget that have to do with climate change and the carbon tax that is going to be put in place. I am distressed when I hear the government talk about how this is going to save the children and prevent floods. We should ask, at what price are floods going to be prevented? There is no relationship there. One is a tax grab, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the other. People want to talk about a global problem that needs a global solution, and Canada is less than 2% of the problem. If those regions that are 98% of the problem are not addressed, the problem will not be solved, and that is clear. The government definitely is off track when it comes to its environmental plan.

What about seniors? Earlier in my speech, I mentioned that one in six people is a senior, and that number is going to be one in four in a few short years. We see pretty much nothing in this budget that is going to help seniors. There is a doctor and nurse shortage across the country, and seniors who cannot afford to live. The measures that are prescribed here are, first of all, inadequate and also a recap. The government is recapping what it did with the CPP. It is taking $1,200 out of each working person's pocket, but nobody will see a benefit for 40 years. That is not going to help people who are struggling right now. More is needed to be done for the seniors, and there is absolutely no doubt about that.

I have seniors in my riding who are concerned that we do not have a plan for long-term care spaces. The hospitals are logjammed because there is no place for them to go. We know that several provinces are trying to build long-term care spaces. We are building 2,000 spaces in Sarnia—Lambton, and we probably need an additional 2,000 or 3,000. That is another area the government did not address that would have been very important for seniors.

Second last, I will talk about the training benefits. The government has decided that $250 a year is going to help people get the training needed to move on and get a good job. That shows how out of touch the government is. Does it not understand the cost of tuition, and the cost of training courses that are usually $1,000 a day? Therefore, $250 a year is not going to be very good.

There was an effort made to help first-time homebuyers acquire a home by allowing them to spend $35,000 of their RRSPs, instead of $25,000. I have two children who are of the age to buy a home, but I am not sure how many people of that age have $35,000 in RRSPs. Therefore, that was a miss.

As one of my other colleagues pointed out earlier, there are some restrictions related to a homebuyer's income as to how much support can be obtained. There will not be a lot of people who will be able to take advantage of that. Once again, the government has recognized that it has made buying a home, which is desirable for many young people, unaffordable, but it has done nothing about it.

I am coming to the end of my remarks. This budget has not met people's needs, and for that reason I propose an amendment.

I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following: 'the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures, since the Bill does not balance the budget this year, as promised by the Liberals during the election, but instead the deficit will hit $19.8 billion and the debt will soar to over $705 billion.'

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to compliment the member, in the sense that I think she has spoken more about the budget than the member for Carleton did in 14 hours. At least she is definitely on focus, although somewhat off base, in terms of what the many measures within this budget actually do. I truly believe that it is going to have a wonderful and positive impact on every region of our country.

I would like to go into some of the details and draw out a specific example to see what the member's thoughts are on it. She talked about the importance of research in health care and made reference specifically to cancer. Within this budget is a commitment of $150 million over the next five years to go toward The Terry Fox Research Institute, which is a substantial commitment. I would ultimately argue that it provides hope and an opportunity to look at ways in which we can do better on this terrible disease which affects every region of our country.

I ask the member this. What are her thoughts in regard to the government providing that particular grant?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, certainly I believe that the money designated for cancer research is another good thing in the budget. I was at the Atlantic Cancer Research Institute, which is one of the beneficiaries of the Terry Fox cancer fund money.

There are broader issues that were not addressed in the budget with respect to cancer. I highlighted that ovarian cancer has finally received some funding. However, the subject of who is going to pay for people's cancer medications was missed by the government. As well, its pharmacare offering was totally absent. When we look at the top ten reasons for why people die in Canada, we see that cancer is one reason, but diabetes is another. Again, that was a big hole in the budget, with no money at all for diabetes.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to serve on the health committee with the hon. member. I am holding in my hand a copy of the 2019-20 estimates of the Department of Health. It shows that the 2017-18 expenditures of the health department were $3.491 billion, and the projected spending in the main estimates for 2019-20 is $2.521 billion. In other words, almost a billion dollars less has been spent on the health department over the last two years. My hon. member and I just went on a cross-country tour to look at the state of the drug policy in this country. We heard that we need a massive investment, particularly in treatment, for people suffering from substance use disorders.

I am wondering, first of all, does the member think that taking a billion dollars out of the federal health budget is consistent with the need for additional investments and drug treatment?

My second question, quickly, is this. We know that the government is budgeting a billion dollars for rare diseases starting in 2022. Does the hon. member have any comment on the practice of the Liberal government in 2019 purporting to spend money in a Parliament that has not even happened and in which the Liberals may not even be the government?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I very much enjoy serving with my hon. colleague on the health committee.

When it comes to the spend within Health Canada, I am fine with the government shifting priorities as situations occur and maybe not spending money here but elsewhere. However, that is definitely not happening. The government is spending less and it is not addressing the causes. We absolutely need more investment in recovery spaces. We heard about wait times of between six months and two years across the country. When an addict gets to the point where they want to take the exit ramp and get out of a life of addiction, they have to have the ability to go somewhere. They cannot be told to come back in six months, because then they are addicted again.

I am very concerned about the kind of budget cut that my colleague mentioned at a time when health needs are increasing, the population is aging and chronic disease is on the rise.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a question around the concept of the additional funds available to young couples who want to purchase a home, supposedly through CMHC providing more of a down payment to them. On Evan Solomon's show, he asked the minister what that would mean. Of course, they would have to pay back CMHC with interest, but if they made a profit on that home, would CMHC be expecting some of those funds? The minister's response was that they had not worked out the details as yet.

What kind of confidence does that give to young couples in this world who are trying to move up in Canada and own a home when the minister himself does not even know how that program is going to be rolled out?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Yorkton—Melville for the question. It is an excellent question. It shows once again that the government has not thought this thing through in the details. It does not know whether it is going to be a stakeholder in the house, share in the profit of the house or just providing an interest-free loan. How can one budget without knowing the facts of what one is going to spend? How can consumers have any kind of confidence without knowing the full detail of what they are agreeing to when they get into an agreement with the government? It shows that the government has not thought this issue through.

Again, the government is virtue signally. It is trying to attract the young voter they are going after here, but with a mechanism that will not help the young voter, unfortunately.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to take a look at the bigger picture. Since day one, this is a government that has been focused on Canada's middle class. There is absolutely no doubt about that, whether it is through budgetary measures, legislative measures or changes in regulations. Time and time again, there are many actions that see Canada's middle class building strength and adding to the economy. Ultimately, the proof is in the pudding.

My question to the member across the way is in relation to the overall job opportunities. In the last three and a half years, by working with Canadians, we have seen well over 900,000 new jobs added to the Canadian economy. Would she not agree that at the end of the day we want to have safe communities and an expanded economy? These are the two items that this government has been very successful at doing, because the numbers tell it all. Would she not agree?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would disagree about the middle class. In fact, the government has made life for the middle class less affordable. It has increased taxes, according to the Fraser Institute, by $892 per person. I would argue that it is because of all of the tax credits that the Liberals took away.

For example, on education, and I have kids in university, there was a $5,000 tuition credit and $1,200 for books. They took away the child fitness tax credit, which was another $1,200 per child. Arguably, one could have had $3,000 or $4,000 from that. They took away income splitting. People who were taking advantage of that would be saving $12,000 or $13,000. On top of that, they have increased the CPP requirement for people, of $1,200, and on top of that, there is a carbon tax.

They have hugely increased taxes on the middle class and reduced taxes on the wealthy. They are paying $1 billion less. Again, I think the government is deceived in what it is trying to achieve.

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

Madam Speaker, I have heard from a parent in my area who was quite concerned. In responding to the opioid crisis, the provincial health authority has been making drug kits available to youth rather than addressing the issue. In a place like Kelowna, which many consider urban, youth can wait up to six months and be transported to Vancouver to get the help they so desperately need.

The member has travelled the country to discuss opioids. Could she please comment on the mismatched priorities of how the government does not seem to be listening as to how to deal with it, particularly for the most vulnerable youth?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right that the government has missed the mark. To pledge $6 million to buy safe drugs for addicts does not recognize the need to get people off of drugs. It does not recognize, from a priority perspective, that there are taxpaying people who cannot afford their diabetes medication, who do not have their cancer drugs paid for.

There are priorities, and we need to figure out how to cover all of those, but this is not it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before we resume debate, I want to remind the next speaker that unfortunately we will have to interrupt him about halfway through to go to Statements by Members.

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

Madam Speaker, before I begin my formal speech, I cannot help but mention to the member for Sarnia—Lambton that, as she keeps quoting the Fraser Institute, that study has been debunked by just about anyone who knows how to use a calculator.

She should look at the OECD report that just came out this morning saying that the Canadian middle class has one of the lowest tax burdens of the OECD countries. That is largely due to the changes we have made by lowering taxes for the middle class and introducing the Canada child benefit, which is more generous and more progressive. I would suggest that she and other members broaden their horizons and perhaps look at sources other than the Fraser Institute, as that study in particular is just plain fallacious.

I am pleased to be here today to speak to budget implementation act, 2019, No. 1 and about the measures we presented in budget 2019 to strengthen the middle class.

I would like to use my time today to highlight some important measures we are proposing in this budget implementation bill that build on what we have done so far. I believe that this bill will help us continue to improve the lives of middle-class Canadians and those who are working hard to join the middle class.

Before I explain the various measures in this bill, which presents the next phase of our plan, I want to remind hon. members of how we got to where we are today.

Nearly four years ago, Canadians voted for a government that promised to invest in the areas that mattered most to them, like well-paying jobs and more help for families facing a high cost of living that keeps rising, strong, connected communities, and better opportunities for young Canadians. We have kept our promises. For nearly four years now, our government has been dedicated to strengthening and growing the middle class and providing real help to those working very hard to join it and to low-income Canadians, to make sure everyone has a real and fair chance to succeed and reach their full potential.

First, the government created the Canada child benefit to help families with the cost of raising their children. This benefit has lifted close to 300,000 children out of poverty over the past three years. In fact, a couple of weeks ago, Statistics Canada reported that poverty has fallen by 20% in Canada over the past three years. We have been able to lift more than 800,000 Canadians out of poverty thanks to these policies, which the opposition voted against at every turn.

Over nine million Canadians are benefiting from the middle-class tax cut, which is helping them save more and buy what they need.

The new Canada workers benefit also encourages more people to join and remain in the job market. It provides real help to more than two million Canadians working hard to join the middle class. It helped lift 70,000 people out of poverty. The enhanced Canada pension plan provides current and future Canadian workers with increased income security upon retirement.

Historic investments through the national housing strategy are helping more Canadians find safe and affordable housing.

Overall, these measures will have a long-term impact on all Canadians.

With our government's plan, the Canadian economy created more than 900,000 new jobs, most of them full-time. This has led to the lowest unemployment rate in the past 40 years. There were particularly significant job gains for women.

We know that we cannot rest on our laurels. If we want to continue growing the economy and the middle class, we must continue these efforts, which have proven to be successful these past four years. This is what budget 2019, which we are presenting today in the House, is all about.

Through budget 2019, the government is taking further steps to help build communities that Canadians can be proud to call home.

Managing household costs is one example of where some Canadians struggle. For instance, the price of electricity is a rising concern. Rates keep going up, outpacing salary increases, making it more and more difficult to make ends meet. Therefore, our government is doing more to make sure that families can afford their monthly electricity bills. Budget 2019 proposes to invest more than $1 billion to increase energy efficiency in residential, commercial and multi-unit buildings, a measure that is included in this budget implementation act. This money could go a long way toward making Canada's homes and buildings more energy efficient, which would help reduce Canadians' electricity bills, whether they are homeowners, renters or building operators, and it would help build more sustainable communities.

Further to the point of building up communities, sometimes spending allocated from the federal government to provinces and territories is caught up in bureaucratic deadlock. When this happens, it prevents cities and towns from making progress on important projects, such as road maintenance, water infrastructure, public transit and recreational infrastructure.

Budget 2019 proposes to support municipalities' local infrastructure priorities by doubling the federal municipal infrastructure commitment with a further $2.2 billion in 2018-19. This would give municipalities and first nations communities the funds needed to pay for crucial repairs and other important local projects. By supporting this BIA, hon. members would be supporting this $2.2 billion injection that would provide much-needed infrastructure funds for communities of all sizes across the country. The legislation before us today would ensure that the money would get to where the needs are.

Building communities Canadians are proud to call home also means ensuring that these communities are prepared to respond to an emergency. When tragedy strikes, every second counts.

Since 1985, the Shock Trauma Air Rescue Service, STARS, has provided rapid and specialized emergency helicopter ambulance services to patients who are critically ill or injured in communities across western Canada, including in indigenous communities and in national parks. Thanks to STARS, Canadians who live in rural and remote communities have better access to emergency care.

In recognition of the vital role STARS plays in delivering access to emergency care in the communities it serves, budget 2019 proposes to provide a one-time investment of $65 million in 2018-19 for STARS to replace its aging fleet with new emergency ambulance helicopters. Support for today's legislation would directly support this measure.

On housing, as I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, our government is taking important steps to make housing more affordable and more accessible.

Buying a house or a condo is probably the most important investment most Canadians will make in their lifetimes. However, too many Canadians are not able to enter the market. That is why, through budget 2019 and with Bill C-97 before us, our government would build on Canada's national housing strategy and take action to improve the affordability of housing, especially for first-time homebuyers.

To help more middle-class families find affordable homes today, we would offer new, targeted support for first-time homebuyers through the first-time homebuyers incentive. The idea is to reduce the monthly payments required to buy a home to give first-time homebuyers greater flexibility, both in purchasing a home and in managing its ongoing costs.

Under the first-time homebuyers incentive, eligible first-time homebuyers who had the minimum down payment for an insured mortgage would apply to finance a portion of the home purchase through a shared equity mortgage with Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, CMHC. With a shared equity mortgage, first-time homebuyers would save money every month, giving them more money to pay down their traditional mortgage sooner or to spend on their priorities.

As we all know, one of the hardest things for a first-time homebuyer is to scrape together enough funds for a down payment and to cover the associated costs of a home purchase. To help Canadians on this front, this legislation proposes to increase the homebuyers plan withdrawal limit to $35,000 from $25,000. With these new measures and improvements, the dream of owning a home would be a reality for more and more Canadians.

Realizing this dream is also in good part a function of Canadians' ability to get good, well-paid jobs so they can afford that first home.

to that end, we must—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member. He will have 11 minutes when the House resumes this debate after oral question period.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance has 11 minutes left to finish his speech.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to pick up where I left off on the budget implementation bill.

I was talking about the importance of having a skilled workforce and giving Canadians the opportunity to find and acquire skills to adapt to the fast-changing employment market.

Technology changes the nature of work and it is evolving rapidly. That represents a new challenge for Canadian workers, who must get the necessary training to keep their existing jobs or prepare to meet new challenges. The jobs of tomorrow will require more skills, and workers will need to be more flexible throughout their careers.

Budget 2019 will help workers find the time and money they need to improve their skills by introducing such measures as the Canada training benefit. This benefit will help Canadians cover the cost of training.

We are working with the provinces and territories on establishing new labour provisions to protect jobs when workers leave on training.

Our government also wants to make sure that Canada's seniors have more money in their pockets when they retire. After a lifetime of raising children, supporting their families, building strong communities and growing the economy, we want our seniors to know they are not forgotten. Canadian seniors deserve a secure and dignified retirement, free of financial worries. With budget 2019, our government is making new investments to help make retirement more financially secure for more Canadians. For instance, many older Canadians want to stay active and involved in their communities through work, but they face significant reductions in their guaranteed income supplement, the GIS, or allowance benefits for each dollar of income above the current $3,500 earnings exemption. Those who are self-employed do not have access to the current exemption. Therefore, with Bill C-97, our government proposes to enhance the GIS earnings exemption by providing a full or partial exemption on up to $15,000 and extending it to self-employment income. That means more money in the pockets of eligible working seniors.

We also want to make sure that our seniors do not live in isolation, especially when faced with ageism or poor health. To combat this, budget 2019 will further its support to the new horizons for seniors program. The program supports projects that improve the quality of life for Canada's vulnerable seniors, creating more opportunities for seniors to be active in their communities. Specifically, budget 2019 is proposing additional funding of $100 million over five years, with $20 million per year ongoing for the program.

Furthermore, as announced in budget 2019 and in this bill, our government has proposed measures to ensure that seniors keep more money in their pockets and receive Canada pension plan benefits. These changes will proactively enrol contributors who are age 70 or older in 2020 but have not yet applied to receive their retirement benefit.

The Canada Pension Plan is a pillar of Canada's retirement system. It gives workers a secure, predictable benefit in retirement. Workers have to apply for CPP benefits, but some eligible seniors apply late or not at all. This change will ensure that they get it no matter what.

Finally, we believe that everyone deserves to have peace of mind when it comes to their retirement, especially people who have worked for their whole lives to help a company try to stay afloat. However, in recent years, the security of some workplace pensions has been challenged due to company bankruptcies, leaving pensioners out in the cold. That is why, following consultations with Canadians, budget 2019 proposes to introduce new measures to enhance the security of workplace pensions in the event of corporate insolvency. These measures, which are part of Bill C-97, would make insolvency proceedings fairer, set higher expectations for corporate behaviour and protect the hard-earned benefits of Canadians.

I am thankful for the opportunity to talk about Bill C-97 and how our government continues to work to strengthen Canada's middle class and those people working hard to join it. The measures I have highlighted today reflect the priorities of hard-working Canadians, regardless of the stage of life they are in. By voting in favour of this BIA, we are voting yes to affordable and accessible housing, a cleaner and safer environment, and a dignified retirement for those who have worked so diligently to deserve it.

It is worth reiterating that this BIA is entirely consistent with our government's agenda, an agenda that differs significantly from the former government's.

We are steering Canada in a direction that will truly reduce inequality. The previous government had very little interest in this important societal objective, namely reducing inequality in this country. On the contrary, during the Harper decade, inequality in Canada actually increased.

The gap between the wealthy and the rest of the population widened. When we were elected in 2015, our goal was to undo the damage caused to Canadian society. I think we have been very successful. Notably, poverty has been reduced by 20% over the past three years, which is huge. That is not easily done. This has been a lengthy process undertaken in concert with my colleagues, the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, among others. The government tackled it with bold measures that are now paying off.

What were those measures? First, we had to cancel some of the tax breaks the previous government had implemented, tax breaks that invariably benefited only the rich. One example is the tax-free savings account, or TFSA. The Conservatives increased the contribution limit on these accounts to $11,000 during their last year in power.

According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer and almost all the economists who were consulted at the time of the change, the TFSA was putting the government in a difficult fiscal position. The government would ultimately lose out of a large amount of revenue needed to fulfill its essential duties. The measure also very clearly benefited the highest-earning Canadians. A simple calculation shows that very few Canadians have $11,000 a year to invest in a TFSA after paying their taxes.

The man who invented this investment vehicle said at the time that this would eventually put Canada in a fiscal straitjacket. Stephen Harper's government simply did not care—not that reducing inequality was one of its priorities. This was the first measure we reviewed.

We also reviewed certain boutique tax credits, which the Parliamentary Budget Officer analyzed and found to also benefit the 10% or 15% wealthiest Canadians.

Furthermore, we completely reformed the family benefits system by creating the Canada child benefit, which, unlike the previous benefit system, gives more to those who need it most. We stopped sending cheques to millionaire families and made the benefit tax free, which was not the case under the former government.

We now know that this has had a direct impact on the lives of hundreds of thousands of Canadians. It has reduced child poverty in Canada by 40%. Indeed, 300,000 children have been lifted out of poverty. I want to reiterate that that is something that all Canadians should be proud of.

Contrary to the direction in which it was going before the Liberal government took office, over the past three years, Canada has been clearly and firmly on the path toward reducing inequality and creating much more inclusive prosperity. Speaking of prosperity, I have to say that these measures also created growth. Although Canada was in a recession in 2015, it had the highest growth in the G7 in 2017. Canada was among the best in 2018 and, according to projections, we are still in a very good position since 900,000 jobs have been created over the past three years and the unemployment rate is the lowest it has been in nearly 40 years. That is what comes of having a vision and ambitions for the country, things that were sorely lacking for a decade.

Take, for example, investments in science. My riding is privileged to be home to Laval University, which is a leader in the field of research in the Quebec City area, Quebec and Canada. One just has to wander the hallways of Laval University and talk to the researchers there to see just how lean the years from 2006 to 2015 were for them. There was not enough funding for research. When researchers and the scientific community are deprived of the funding they need to do their work, it closes the door on innovation in the long term.

There are all kinds of Laval University spin-offs in my region and across the country. Those companies are economic superstars that hire thousands of Quebeckers and Canadians to do high-value-added jobs. That was made possible because past governments have had the courage, vision, intelligence and wisdom to invest in the sciences. That was on hold for 10 years under Stephen Harper, but has been reinvigorated thanks to government measures of the past three years. Budget 2018 contained the biggest investment in science and research in this country's history. I find it so hard to believe—well, maybe not that hard—that opposition parties, especially the Conservatives, would vote against measures like this that lay the groundwork for long-term prosperity, for innovation in this country, for a thriving knowledge economy and for a more just and responsible society where inequality is on a steady decline. That is what the government has been working toward for the past three years. Our plan is working, and it is working very well.

I think budget 2019 and Bill C-97, the budget implementation bill, are fully consistent with those goals. Our budget supports seniors and youth, and we continue to invest strategically to protect the environment and foster innovation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, former parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Health and hon. member for Louis-Hébert, with whom I will very likely have the great pleasure and good fortune of debating over the coming months, in September and October, during the election campaign.

I have a lot to say, but I will take things one step at a time. He said something I want to come back to. I took notes. I may be misquoting, but he said something about sending money where it is needed.

Let us talk about that. Let us talk about sending money where it is needed. A few days ago, his government decided to take $12 million of taxpayers' money and give it in the form of a subsidy to a company that raked in more than $3 billion in gross profits last year. It is good to want to buy new refrigerators, but it makes no sense for a company that has more than $3 billion in the bank to get $12 million from Canadian workers in a taxpayer-funded subsidy.

Does the hon. member stand by what he said about sending money where it is needed? Sending $12 million of workers' money to a company with $3 billion in gross profits, is that what he means by sending money where it is needed?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, gave a very good explanation that answers the member's question.

First of all, it is not surprising to see the Conservatives oppose any measure that would protect the environment and combat climate change. That is what they did for 10 years, and they are still doing it. They oppose putting a price on pollution. I was surprised to see the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent so enthusiastically applauding his colleagues who want to make pollution free in Canada. If I am not mistaken, he was in the National Assembly when Quebec adopted the carbon exchange. He is fighting against a tax on pollution, against an idea that he himself championed, or at least I assume he did, when he was in the National Assembly.

If it is good for Quebec, why would it be bad for the rest of the country? How is Quebec's taking responsibility for the environment bad for the rest of the country? I have a really hard time understanding that. However, my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, explained it very well.

As for the $12 million, the decision was made after careful consideration. The company will invest $36 million in the project, the impact of which will be equivalent to removing 50,000 vehicles from the roads.

Since we are talking about investing money where people need it the most, and where it is required, let's talk about the Canada child benefit, which sends $68 million to 12,500 families in his riding. It provides an average tax-free amount of $5,000 a year to these families and he voted against it. Why?

For the past three years, I have watched him get all worked up over the public transit tax credit. How much did the public transit tax credit yield? It provided between $13 and $25 a month to those who had a Quebec City transit pass. That is his plan to fight poverty, whereas our plan gives $5,000 to every family in his riding.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his passion. I believe that he truly wants to reduce inequality.

I heard him speak about seniors, among other things. Less than two weeks ago, I held a round table for the people from the Table de concertation des aînés de Beauharnois-Salaberry. They told me that, sadly, seniors today are very vulnerable. In spite of what was announced in the budget, they did not seem to think that there was more assistance or resources, especially with respect to home care. Given that the health transfer increase was cut from 6% to 3% by the previous Conservative government and that the Liberals did not increase it in the past or in this budget, there is a shortage of funds, and yet, our population is still aging.

On top of that, still on the topic of health care, no additional resources, whether material or financial, are being offered to community organizations that help seniors stay in their homes. Seniors often have to choose between paying for all of their drugs every month or buying groceries. This is a real problem. In my region, people who work for meals on wheels programs tell us they cannot raise the price of a meal by even 50¢, because seniors would be forced to cut the number of meals they get, since they simply cannot afford to pay any more.

Why, then, does the budget not increase health transfers? Why does it not create a pharmacare system? All studies show that Canada would save between $3 billion and $11 billion a year in every budget if we had a single body to negotiate drug prices. Clearly, a number of measures are missing from this budget, measures that could have helped reduce inequality, especially for seniors.

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

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

I agree with her completely that there is still work to do to reduce inequality. However, it is important to be fair in assessing our government's record over the past three years. We are not the ones saying so. According to Statistics Canada, poverty in this country has been reduced by 20% over the past three years. Some 800,000 people have been lifted out of poverty.

As for seniors, one of the first things we did when we took office was boost the guaranteed income supplement by 10%, which specifically aimed to help the most vulnerable seniors. This means almost $1,000 more every year for nearly one million seniors who are among the most vulnerable in the country.

I am particularly pleased about one measure in this latest budget that will help low-income seniors by increasing the guaranteed income supplement earnings exemption for employed or self-employed seniors who choose to work part-time. Right now, the full exemption is $3,500. We raised it to $5,000 and introduced a partial exemption for income above that amount up to a total of $15,000. This means more money at the end of the month for many seniors in Quebec and Canada because less of their benefit will be clawed back than was the case with the $3,500 exemption. FADOQ supports this part of the bill, and I encourage the NDP to support it too.

I would like to remind the House that, although we will keep health transfer increases to 3%, back when I was parliamentary secretary to the minister of health, we committed to transferring $11 billion over 10 years for mental health and home care. Factoring in that investment, which will be transferred to the provinces, including Quebec, the transfer payment increase is much higher than 3%.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance for finally getting us speaking about the budget after all the diversions we have had over the last few weeks.

The previous government added $153 billion to the national debt and there was little help for climate change initiatives, social housing, mental health or, in fact, the economy, which grew slower than it did under R.B. Bennett. When we look at the changing world around us, we need to address these issues.

I am very interested to hear comments from the parliamentary secretary relating to the way that jobs are changing, the nature of work and what we are doing to support work-integrated learning, support tuition for students and support parental leave for researchers at universities, things that get us into future prosperity and the jobs of the future. Could the parliamentary secretary talk about the vision of the future that this budget presents us?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Guelph for his question. I truly appreciate it.

Budget 2019 reflects what we have been hearing everywhere in the country, whether it be from unions, employers or management, regarding the need for skilled workers and the need to offer workers opportunities to get the training and skills required to adapt to the changing job market. Budget 2019 allows workers to accumulate weeks that can be used for this training, and we will help pay them through the Canada workers benefit, so that they can adapt to a changing job market. This meets a need that we see in the Canadian economy of today. It will lay the foundation for sustainable economic prosperity in Canada, where we still do not have enough skilled workers to meet the job market's needs.

This is an ambitious measure that has been lauded by universities and training institutes. They support it and want to adapt their programs by offering training that will help Canadian workers who are seeking these kinds of skills and training.

I am very pleased to see that the government is aware of this reality and that it wants to give Canadians every opportunity to learn the skills they need to succeed in the modern economy.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to be sharing my time with the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

Due to the precedents that have been set in this budget debate, I am going to ask whether I have a 20-minute time slot to share or a four-day time slot. It's 20-minutes. Okay, thank you.

I am proud to represent the fine people of central Alberta. My colleague from Red Deer—Mountain View is beside me. We have unfortunately seen over the last three a half years, since the last election, probably some of the hardest times for all of Alberta since Pierre Elliott Trudeau was the prime minister of Canada. If anyone in central Alberta is asked what the issue is, it is the lack or loss of confidence in the investment climate surrounding the energy sector.

I want to take Canadians back to what happened. One of the very first things the government did after it was elected was to change the goalposts on the two pipeline projects, the energy east project at the time, and, of course, the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain expansion. There was the absolutely devastating notion of cancelling the already approved pipeline. We had over 30 of the 40 indigenous groups along the route, and the National Energy Board had already approved the pipeline. Enbridge was seeking to fulfill all of its 206 obligations under the agreement.

The northern gateway pipeline was the only pipeline going to the west coast that would diversify Canada's market when it comes to its oil products. The Trans Mountain expansion pipeline, should it ever get built, and we will discuss that in my speech further, will add capacity, but it will not diversify the markets. All of the tankers that currently come into the port of Vancouver to pick up the oil that is moved from the current Trans Mountain pipeline end up along the American west coast to be processed at the crude refineries there.

Anyone from the Liberal Party or the NDP provincially who suggests to Albertans and to Canadians that this pipeline is going to close the gap on the market price between the North American price of crude oil and the international price of crude oil is not being honest with Canadians.

Alberta has been devastated by the job losses in the energy environment. It has been over 130,000 jobs directly. These are jobs where there were people with payroll taxes. They were counted amongst the people who were laid off from a business. This does not include the numerous people who have not found work, who are self-employed contractors in the energy sector. I am not sure that anyone across the row here understands what that means.

These people would never show up on an unemployment list, because they are self-employed. They are contractors. They are the folks who would be employed at the very high end of the energy sector to be out on site and doing all the consultations. These are consultants who are out on the drilling pads, out doing all of the work. These are the ones with the most expertise in the energy sector. They too have had to dig deep into their savings, and many of them have exhausted those savings a long time ago. It is also anyone with a small business. There are only a few service companies left, the long-standing service companies, that have been able to withstand the economic pressures. Numerous small business have all but closed up their shops and gone in a different direction. A lot of them are leaving Alberta.

With regard to those Albertans who remain and are trying to find work, about one in three have managed to keep their jobs and the others are finding employment in places like Texas. When I was first elected as a member of Parliament to this House, there were two flights a day to both Edmonton and Calgary direct from Ottawa. Those flights would source out of Halifax or Montreal, and they would stop in Ottawa and continue on to Edmonton and/or Calgary. Those airports would serve me and my colleague equally well, because they are equidistance from Red Deer, which is in the heart of central Alberta.

Those planes used to be full of workers. They would all be wearing their firebag project jackets or their Kearl project jackets, and they would be coming from Atlantic Canada or from Quebec. Many, many workers were coming from Quebec, starting in Montreal. They were getting on Air Canada flight 104 on its way back to Alberta. I remember that number, as I took that flight for over a decade. Those people are not on those planes anymore, and the reason is that there is no expansion of the energy sector in Alberta. There are continuing operations for those projects that were already completed, but the reality is that the pipeline capacity is already there.

The other projects that were on the books, and there is over $100 billion worth of these projects, have been cancelled or shelved. That money has been taken elsewhere to invest in other countries, basically to compete against our current energy sector here in Canada. Those employees are no longer coming and that investment is no longer there. The pipeline capacity is at max, and the current price of oil makes railing oil uneconomical, especially when we saw the devastating oil prices at around $11 a barrel just a few months ago. This is for a sector of our economy that traditionally provides Canada with billions of dollars in revenue, which is shared among all the provinces through social transfers, the education transfer and likely even a good portion of it in equalization payments to other provinces.

I am proud to say that under the tenure when I was here, until the change of government in the last election, my province had not had to receive an equalization payment for the better part of 40 years. We had been a have-province. As a matter of fact, there have been times, because of the energy sector, that Alberta has been the only have-province in this confederation. However, it did not take very long for Premier Rachel Notley and the current government in Ottawa to put Alberta in a position where we had to beg for an emergency assistance transfer under the equalization program. I think it was a couple of hundred thousand dollars. I do not think it really amounted to a whole lot of difference other than a kind gesture.

Here is a sector of our economy that is typically producing billions of dollars of revenue, and not only corporate revenue, but also from employees, tens of thousands of workers. There were over 130,000 direct jobs lost, and probably another 30,000 or 40,000 of those consultants I talked about, people who are self-employed in the sector. Those jobs are all gone. On April 8, a few days ago, the industry came out with another forecast that is expecting another 12,500 jobs lost in the sector, most likely in Alberta.

Alberta is taking it on the chin, so much so that before Christmas, the government announced $1.6 billion for the energy sector. Imagine that happening in three short years when the energy sector has rebounded everywhere else. Albertans are now going to Texas or other places on the planet to work in the energy sector. Energy is booming. The United States used to be a net importer of Canadian energy; now the United States, because of its domestic policies, is in a position to export to Canada of all things. Here we are in this situation. We know that it cannot be the international price of energy anymore. We know it cannot be, because the energy sector is booming in other parts of the world, notably right next door to us in the United States. Therefore, it can only be government policy here in Canada that is causing this problem.

These job losses are catastrophic. If we take a look in the budget document today, we will see that there are millions of dollars allocated for consultation. The Prime Minister got up on his high horse and said that the previous government had it all wrong with the CETA 2012 and everything else, and that the government was going to create a process that guaranteed that pipeline projects would go ahead. What do we have? We have a project to the east coast that is dead in the water because of the regulatory burden and the quagmire that nobody in their right mind would ever subject stakeholder investment to. We have a cancelled northern gateway project that is likely never going to be reinstated by Enbridge. We have a group of indigenous people who are putting together the Eagle Spirit pipeline, which would follow a similar path as northern gateway.

We have Bill C-48, the northern coast tanker ban, which is only a tanker ban if that tanker happens to have Alberta oil on it. It is not a tanker ban for anybody else. LNG Canada is building a wonderful facility in Kitimat right now for liquefied natural gas, and we wish it the best of luck. We think that is a fantastic opportunity for the people there as well.

However, we are left with the Trans Mountain expansion from Kinder Morgan. The government has botched that so much and so badly that it had to take $4.5 billion of Canadian taxpayers' money to buy a 65-year-old existing pipeline and the rights to continue to develop the Trans Mountain expansion itself. We know from the documents, which Kinder Morgan has publicly announced, that the Government of Canada likely paid $1 billion more for that pipeline project than it should have paid. All we have in the budget out of the $1.6 billion that was promised before Christmas are a few million dollars to continue on with consultations.

In the budget document that I have been able to look at and examine, not one dollar is allocated to putting a shovel in the ground to build the Kinder Morgan Trans-Mountain expansion. Until we can change the mind of the current government on how it is approaching the energy sector, the only hope we have in Alberta is a change in the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, as someone who has had the opportunity to serve in the Canadian Forces, having been posted in Edmonton at the old Lancaster Park, having a family, including my mother and siblings who have lived in the province of Alberta, and as someone who was raised in the Prairies, there is an immense sense of prairie pride there. I like to think that the people who are living in the Prairies appreciate living in a wonderful country like Canada. I am often discouraged by some of the comments I hear from the Conservatives about the province of Alberta. It is as if they want to see more division. That discourages me. I would suggest to the member opposite that there is value in being able to say “I am Canadian”, and that applies throughout the Prairies.

When the member said that the federal government has not invested, I would suggest that this government has invested far more energy and resources in Alberta than Stephen Harper ever did. I would suggest that the member take a look at one example in this budget. Hundreds of millions of dollars are being put into municipal infrastructure from gas, which in Winnipeg is something like $37 million. That also applies to every municipality in the province of Alberta. Is he going to be voting against that initiative?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, you have been a member of Parliament here for as long as I have. You were here from 2006 to 2015, as was I. There were never many conversations in this place about national unity. I did not bring up anything about national unity in my speech. I do not know why the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is bringing it up. He is perhaps hearing it from other people, maybe even in Manitoba.

We did not have those issues, because we had a government that governed from 2006 to 2015 on behalf of all Canadians. We had a prime minister who took seriously all of the responsibilities across all of the sectors and regions of this country. So far, we have lost over 150,000 jobs in the energy sector. We know that can only be government policy. The farmers I represent have lost wheat access to Saudi Arabia. They have lost lentil access into India. Now they have lost canola access into China because of the fumbling of international affairs by the current Prime Minister and the government.

There is not a single mention in the budget to deal with the rise in the rates of crime, particularly rural crime and the crime that is happening in the city of Red Deer right now.

I am looking forward to the report from the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to see just how seriously the current government is taking the issues that are important to Albertans.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, having glanced over the budget implementation act in trying to find something for agriculture, the one thing I did find were the effects of bankruptcy. That was the only thing that pertained to agriculture, as it looks at specific farming and fishing income and tries to somehow work that into the tax bills. Unfortunately, that is what it is coming to with the way in which the current government is looking at our agricultural community. I wonder if the member could talk about some of the concerns, especially the concerns that the canola producers have with what has been happening in these last couple of months.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Red Deer—Mountain View. He is a staunch advocate for farmers and producers. I grew up on a farm in central Alberta. We grew canola, wheat, barley and oats, all of the crops that are typically grown there today. What we are seeing now is that the lack of market access for energy is happening in the agricultural sector because the current government has bungled that.

Spring seeding is almost upon us and farmers are worried. At night, they are staying up, looking out the window, wondering if anybody is going to come on to their property and steal from them. This is because of the unprecedented socio-economic problems that the bungling of the energy sector has caused in central Alberta. Now they are going to be worried all day long about whether they are going to be able to sell their products, if they happen to get them off the field in the fall. This is not a situation that any of these people have asked for. They are hard-working Canadians. They play by the rules. They work hard, day in and day out. They pay their taxes. All they want is a government that acts maturely, responsibly and delivers results for them.

In response to the parliamentary secretary's question, I will be voting against this budget, not because everything in the budget might be good or bad, but because the constituents I represent and I have zero confidence in the current government.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to follow on the words of my colleague. I come with a very similar level of concern from my constituents. In this budget, they see no relief. They see no relief from a government that has shut them out in so many ways.

My colleague spoke about the energy sector and the jobs that have been sacrificed by the government. The employment base for the energy sector in western Canada is so large that it actually pulls people from my riding in eastern Ontario, in Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes. The implications are far-reaching and will affect us for generations, and Canadians are rightly concerned.

Not that long ago, when I was running in a by-election for the seat that I am honoured to hold today, I heard a very consistent message from my constituents when they responded to what was put on offer to them.

In 2015, some of those people supported the government—

[Wayne Easter]

Wisely.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

They heard promises. There was a promise that the Liberals would make historic investments in infrastructure and balance the budget in 2019. Well, when I was on their doorsteps, my constituents had seen the writing on the wall. They had seen that the government has no plan, no ability to balance the budget and, what is more, is unable to deliver on that infrastructure commitment.

We see commitments in 2019 in the form of much-needed revenue for infrastructure programs, which will come in the form of an increase to the gas tax benefit that the municipalities receive, but that is not what they are used to and it is not what Canadians expect of their government.

In 2008, there was a global financial crisis, the likes of which had not been seen in the lifetime of anyone in this House. In response to it, Conservatives invested in Canada. I can speak from experience in my riding that some of the investments made by the Conservative government have impacts that will last for a generation or more, which I am very proud of. They included $12 million at the grain elevator at the Port of Johnstown in Edwardsburgh/Cardinal township, with matching funds of $12 million from the province and $12 million from the municipality. It directly employs many and indirectly employs many hundreds more, and it is a real service to the agriculture community. As well, $60 million was invested in the two ports of entry at Prescott and at the Thousand Islands, easing access to our market and the American market, as well as allowing tourists to more easily visit the beautiful riding of Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes as a gateway to our great country.

We also saw $110 million invested in broadband. That funding was sorely needed at the time, and funding is again needed today. We see talk of broadband investment in this budget, but it will be paid out up until the year 2030. That is not going to do it. That is not going to do it for people who want to work from home or for people who do not otherwise have access to reliable Internet. There are all kinds of implications from that, whether it is just basic connectivity, social and cultural literacy or kids being able to do their school work, but it also affects people who want to operate their businesses. Most farms today rely on reliable broadband Internet, and when we try to bring industry into eastern Ontario and Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, one of the first questions we are asked is what the Internet connectivity is like.

Similarly, when we have an energy sector that is being disrupted through government inaction, we also see the slowdown in expansion of natural gas availability. That is another area where the federal government could choose to make investments. Natural gas availability would reduce reliance on the energy sources that the government is telling Canadians that they need to get off. Natural gas availability would help to change that behaviour.

What Canadians also know is that Conservatives will stand up for things that they have asked us to stand for. One is to scrap the carbon tax. In Ontario and in Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, we suffered under Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne's reign from exorbitantly high energy prices. It was unbelievable. We were mortgaging the futures of a generation of Canadians. Their futures were being sacrificed at the altar of supposed clean technology. All kinds of great tillable land were being sacrificed for energy production that only works when the sun shines and the wind blows, while the turbines were left idle in places like Niagara Falls. We know that hydroelectric power is not only one of the cleanest sources of energy but also a natural resource, and that spilled water is not a resource that should be squandered.

Those are items that are not included in this particular budget, but we know that the Liberals were happy to slide other things into their omnibus budgets in this Parliament, something they campaigned against in 2015. An end to omnibus budgets and omnibus bills was another promise made and broken.

I will circle back to one particular item that was included in the last budget: My constituents remain concerned about proposed changes to firearms laws. We see the government falsely responding to terrible tragedies by looking to punish licensed, law-abiding, fee-paying, responsible Canadians who have had criminal record checks done, are daily run through police databases and responsibly own firearms for legitimate purposes like hunting. We know that hunters are wonderful stewards of conservation and have taken great care to protect the lands that they enjoy while enjoying that activity.

Beyond all of those things, we have seen that this budget was an attempt, a gasp, by the government to cover up what has become one of the greatest political scandals in the history of our country. It is the cover-up budget that spends, spends, spends and breaks promise after promise after promise and seeks not to help Canadians as its primary goal but to distract them from the scandal and distract them from the Liberals' attempted interference in our judicial system. We have seen how the government treats those who dissent, and Canadians are rightly concerned and discouraged.

I was excited in the month of November and into December to run as a Conservative. I am excited to serve as a Conservative in these benches with dedicated, hard-working members under the leadership of the leader of the official opposition. I look forward to standing in October with the Conservatives as we present a real alternative to a government that is plagued by scandal and mismanagement and an inability to get the job done.

Canadians expect better from their government. They can look forward to better from a Conservative government this October.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech the member mentioned the investments in Canada, which we are very proud to be presenting in our budget at a time when the Ontario provincial government is blocking intakes of federal funds into municipalities, including in his riding. We are now looking at ways of getting around that through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to try to get projects on track for this construction season.

The hon. member voted against the Internet investments that we proposed and the investments in the eastern Ontario development program when we were doing our all-night voting. I am wondering whether the hon. member will be voting in favour of our investments that will directly benefit his community and communities across Ontario.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is very simple. Along with my colleagues, I voted against the Liberals' cover-up budget. Just like Canadians who put their faith in the Liberals in 2015, we are being asked to put our faith in them here in 2019. We may have been fooled, but we will not be fooled again.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to comment on the fact that the budget provides for compensation for farmers for the concessions that were made in all of the trade agreements that were signed except for the one with the United States and Mexico.

However, to date, no program has been put in place to distribute that money to dairy and other farmers who got shortchanged in these agreements. What is more, we do not know how the compensation will be distributed. There is no mention of a mechanism or a date.

It was a total disaster the last time. Compensation was announced in July 2017 and was granted on a first-come, first-served basis. Farmers do not want that system to be used again because it is completely inadequate and unfair.

Does my colleague think it is a bad sign that the budget does not provide any details regarding the compensation that is supposed to be granted to farmers who were sacrificed in order to sign all of the trade agreements?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen the government drop the ball on the trade file, and that dropped ball continues to roll into this budget.

When it comes to farmers, we know that the dairy and supply-managed sector was sacrificed in a mishandled NAFTA or USMCA or NAFTA 2.0 trade deal. That was done without consultation with farmers. They were promised that there would be compensation and that there would be conversations, and by the government's own admission, the deal should have been ratified by now.

However, the Liberals still have not honoured their commitment and their obligation to those farmers and to the supply-managed sector. The framework for the supply-managed sector and for farmers is conspicuously absent, but it is not surprisingly absent.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to comment on the great job my colleague is doing for his constituents.

I would like to ask him something very serious. It is about the manufacturing sector.

He knows very well that in Oshawa we had some horrible news about our plant being shut down. We had Windsor laying off 1,500 people under the Wynne-McGuinty Liberals. There have been 400,000 manufacturing jobs pretty much lost. Now the same people who ran that government are in Ottawa, and they are continuing. Even the Prime Minister said that we needed to transition away from manufacturing.

These are good-quality, middle-class jobs, and the Prime Minister keeps saying that he wants to support the middle class. Has my colleague seen anything in the budget that would actually help manufacturers and the families that depend on manufacturing for their way of life?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish my colleague from Oshawa a happy birthday. He is doing a great job fighting for his constituents and for the manufacturing sector, which is an important piece and a pillar in the economy nationally and also here in Ontario.

To answer his question, the budget fails to address the competitiveness that has been ignored and the anti-competitiveness that the government has championed. We know that a carbon tax is something that manufacturers are wary of, having suffered under that with provincial Liberals who are now in the halls of power federally. They know that it is not a sustainable system. Also, we know that with the tariff regime the government has failed to resolve and with the potential for more tariffs should the ham-fisted USMCA that it cobbled together fail, their sector will suffer even more.

There are troubling times currently for the manufacturing sector in Ontario under the federal Liberals, but there is sunshine on the horizon with a Conservative national majority in October.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to have this opportunity to speak this afternoon on what I know will be the last budget of the Liberal government before the election in October. I also want to let the House know that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Vaughan—Woodbridge, as he will also enter this debate.

Every time I stand to speak in this place, I try to remind my colleagues of the uniqueness of the riding I represent. I know we all have great affiliation and love for our own ridings, but it is important to remind people that when someone represents a third of Ontario's land mass, 42 first nations, 22 of which are isolated, as well as 13 municipalities, there are some differences and some unique needs that maybe other members do not have to face every day. This is not to say that they do not have challenges because we all have our unique challenges.

I am rising today to talk about the differences between a Liberal government and a Conservative government in ridings like Kenora. In 2015, the riding of Kenora voted for change because it was looking for a better quality of life and a new approach to reconciliation. When a member represents constituents from 42 first nations, there is a need keep in mind how we will build relationships with indigenous people in the future. When someone represents remote and rural communities, like I do in the Kenora riding, that person votes for an approach to infrastructure that will stop the decade-long precedent by the Harper Conservatives of allowing the north to fall further behind by not investing in new infrastructure.

I am happy to say that Canadians and northerners are better off than they were four years ago. As this is my 20th year as a member of Parliament, I can say from experience that people have priorities they set as well as expectations of their government. One expectation is that the economy will be better. Other expectations are that their quality of life will improve, their children's education will be looked after, the government will think that their health care is important, and obviously, for seniors, that it will make sure their quality and standard of living is maintained during their twilight years and that they are part of our society and will continue to be part of it.

We have decided as a region that we are better off. We have better paying jobs, more families who have opportunities and stronger communities because Liberals decided to invest in the future. Under our government's economic plan, over 900,000 new jobs were created, driving unemployment to the lowest levels in 40 years. In 2018, wages have increased at one of the fastest paces of growth seen in the past eight years.

What is the message when we talk about these kinds of statistics that show that our economy is getting stronger and we have a better quality of life for Canadians? It means that the competing visions we will be talking about in 2019 are going to be important to northerners, as they are to all Canadians. Those visions are what the parties propose will work for the average citizen, whether that person lives in the north, in a rural riding or in the city. I look forward to the opportunity to speak to people in the north about why they should support a second term of this government, and that is because of the improvements the government has been able to make.

I brought a small list of some of the things we have accomplished since 2015. We have made historic investments in northern Ontario and in my riding, the largest investments that have been made in history. I will start with this. There was a $1.6-billion announcement to connect 17 first nations to the power grid.

Here we are with the lights on and that seems pretty normal for those who live in Ottawa. However, where I live, some communities are still on diesel-generated power plants and basically cannot rely on their energy supply to grow an economy or to even use the basic infrastructure that all households have, like a washer or dryer. I do not think people even consider using a dishwasher, because the power supply does not allow for these kinds of appliances to be used in regions like mine.

The $1.6 billion seems like a lot, but I can tell members that it is going to make a big difference in those 17 first nation communities that are now living in isolation. I am looking forward to the day when I can stand up in the House and say that they have all-weather roads and that people can drive to their neighbours and to other communities, can have their kids play sports and go to concerts, and can develop the relationships that we would see as normal in any other part of the country. That is the kind of infrastructure we want.

This is why we cannot afford to elect a government that does not have a vision for the future, a vision that includes making sure that communities, like the ones I represent, do not get left further and further behind.

Our budget continues reconciliation efforts and improvements of major infrastructure for first nation communities right across the country. It is also a municipal-friendly budget. It understands that the economy and a good quality of life starts at the municipal level, with the people who live in those communities.

The government has made the choice to ensure that the municipalities are real partners and not say to the provincial governments that it is their jurisdiction and their issue. In fact, we are all in this together as partners, working to make sure that we have climate change infrastructure in place and have water and sewer systems that can compete with the world's. We should have all-weather roads that are not little but that twin the highway between Kenora and Falcon Lake on the Manitoba border, so that we can attract more customers, tourists and people to come to our region. Just for safety reasons alone, the twinning of that particular stretch of highway would save a lot of lives.

I have been pushing the provincial governments to work with our federal government to put forward infrastructure dollars to build all-weather roads and to twin highways. Sometimes I get the weirdest responses from provincial governments. The Ford government we have now does not seem to think that this is very important. It continues to not put in place or open up the streams of infrastructure so that we can help municipalities and first nations and so that we can build the infrastructure that every other region takes for granted.

We have to be very vigilant to make sure that the provincial governments we put in place in this country are willing to understand the importance of real partnership, and not spend all of their time on petty, partisan politics, which really does nothing for the people we represent. Frankly, I do not care if a provincial government is Conservative, NDP or Liberal. I just want a partner that is willing to work with the federal government to make things happen.

I was in the House when Mike Harris was the provincial premier of Ontario. It was a pretty sad state of affairs. There was a mess left in northern Ontario by Mike Harris. He had fights with the public school system, preaching that the unions were too strong and the teachers did not care about the kids. It was shocking.

We are starting to see this again. We will see massive cuts to our health care system. We have to make sure that we balance that with a good government in Ottawa.

I am looking forward to battling both Conservative Parties: the party on the side opposite, which wants to take over from us, and the provincial Conservatives. They both seem to think that their number one issue is to defeat our government, instead of working on behalf of their constituents.

In the budget, we really focused on seniors and young people. We had to live with a senior housing crisis under the 10 years of the Harper regime. Now we are starting to figure out what we need to do and that is going to make a big difference for seniors.

On the student side, training and education is lifelong. This budget is all about getting ready for an economy that we do not even know what it will look like a decade or two from now. We have to be ready.

I do not need to sell this budget to my constituents of Kenora, but I do need to explain to them the importance of having a vision for the future, the long term vision, not just looking at numbers from one year to the next.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Kenora did not address some things that are very important.

He talked about the unemployment rate. Yes, it is low, but the Liberals are not looking at labour market performance. Ontario performs very poorly in North America. It is behind every state in the U.S. Many of the jobs that the government talks about are public sector jobs. Liberal policies are killing off private sector jobs, which is what I want to ask the member about.

A lot of manufacturing is done in Oshawa. Ontario, his province and my province. Under the Wynne and McGuinty governments, Ontario lost about 400,000 manufacturing jobs because of insane regulations and the highest cost of electricity in North America for industry.

The Prime Minister and the minister stood in the House in November when the plant closure was announced in Oshawa and said that they would have a plan to keep jobs in Oshawa, and I was hoping for a plan for manufacturing.

Could the member please tell me where in the budget the Prime Minister fulfilled that promise to the people of Oshawa, considering that Windsor just lost 1,500 jobs? What is the government doing to stop the bleeding of manufacturing jobs? Are the Liberals from Ontario, who are now running the PMO, going to continue to hurt manufacturing in Ontario?

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to wish my colleague from Oshawa a happy birthday.

One of the things Canadians are pretty comfortable about and understand intrinsically is that governments have a vision, have policies and have direction, and that takes time to implement. They do not need to be told that over and over again. I know how difficult it is. Whether one lives in Alberta or whether one is the Oshawa representative, we all feel the same pain at the loss of jobs.

Our government does have a policy. We do have a plan. We did create the kind of technological hubs that will move forward in the not too distant future. However, we cannot expect results overnight. If we have a vision for the country over a decade long, we will see the results as they start to grow.

I did comment in my speech about how well we were doing with respect to job creation. However, there are particular places where it is not going as well. My own region has always had higher unemployment than most places in the country because it is harder to create employment.

As an ex-labour leader, it does not matter where the jobs are as long as they are good quality jobs, the benefits are good and people have a good quality of life. They we will make a real difference. I do not differentiate between public service jobs and private sector jobs. They are all good as far as I am concerned.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my hon. colleague talked about the importance of working together and working with the regions.

In the Drummond region, people are asking questions about the supply management compensation program. They want details and, most of all, they want all dairy farmers to be compensated. The last time, it was a total disaster.

Something else that is very important for Drummond is the Village Québécois d'Antan, a regional tourist attraction that is very important to Drummond's socio-economic vitality. This heritage gem needs renovations and a number of buildings need to be rebuilt. The Village Québécois d'Antan requested emergency financial assistance from the government, but the government has been dragging its feet.

Will the Liberal government commit to providing the Village Québécois d'Antan with emergency financial assistance?

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member puts me at a slight disadvantage not being from Quebec and knowing exactly what his project is. However, from my own perspective, tourism is a big business. It is one of the largest businesses Canada has, and I happen to be right in the middle of it.

I live next to one of the world's largest lakes in northern Ontario called Lake of the Woods. It is a billion-dollar business for tourism. The lake goes into the United States and Manitoba. I get where the member is coming from in that regard. I expect that if the project is a good one, the government will do its job to ensure we dedicate the resources to keep tourism growing and growing.

Whether it is in Quebec, northern Ontario or British Columbia, the fact remains that tourism is one of the areas that we should be the strongest in as we promote the direction we are going in.

On supply management, as we know, the budget talks directly to supply management and the importance of helping our agriculture community. This last week, I met with the Canadian agricultural group in my office. We had a good conversation about the economy that agriculture produces, which I think is the largest industry in Canada as far as the creation of jobs.

In my humble opinion, we will continue to protect agriculture and its economy simply because it is one of the most important parts of what we do.

Last, food security was a discussion in my office for one reason, and that is there is no agriculture in my riding. There are mining, forestry and tourism. However, people are very interested in the whole idea of food security and how our agriculture community can help individual families get into food security. We should look at that very seriously as far as resources.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay, Public Safety.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is great today to speak to Bill C-97, the budget implementation act, which introduces many of the measures we have brought forward un budget 2019. This goes to our central value of continuing to strengthen the middle class and help those working hard to join it in our great and beautiful country, Canada.

I am proud to be the member of Parliament for Vaughan—Woodbridge, a riding that is very entrepreneurial and a riding in which I have the benefit of raising my two daughters. It is also a riding that when I knock on people's doors, I hear plenty of feedback. My residents are doing well. They are working hard. They are creating a better future for them and their families, which is great to see. We are all here in the House to ensure that Canadians and their families have a better future. That has been a central tenet of our government.

It is my pleasure to rise today to speak about the government's next step in its plan to invest in the middle class and grow the economy.

Recently, our government tabled Bill C-97, the budget implementation act, which announced a number of new initiatives, including measures to make it more affordable for Canadians to rent or buy a home.

I mentioned the word affordable. I hear this a lot, and it is something our government is acting on, and has acted on. Today, the OECD announced that Canadians faced one of the lowest tax burdens among all of the OECD members. That is due to our middle-class tax cut, the Canada child benefit, the 10% increase in the guaranteed income supplement and a number of measures that we have adopted which help Canadians and Canadian families.

Canadians now face one of the lowest tax bases among all OECD countries. We should be proud of that. We need to applaud that and move forward on it. This includes lifting 820,000 Canadians out of poverty and lifting 300,000 children out of poverty. We should be proud of that as well.

Something that is near and dear to the residents of York region and across Canada is housing affordability. Housing affordability and market stability are issues that concern many middle-class families and they are issues that this government takes seriously.

Everyone needs a safe and affordable place to call home, but today too many Canadians are being priced out of the housing market. For 10 years, Conservative politicians, like Stephen Harper and the hon. opposition leader, did nothing to address housing affordability, pushing home ownership further out of the reach of hard-working middle-class Canadians and putting household debt on the rise.

With budget 2019 and through Bill C-97, the BIA, our government is making smart significant investments to help Canadians find an affordable place to call home. One of our responsibilities as a government is to support a healthy, competitive and stable housing market, one in which all middle-class families and first-time home buyers specifically have the possibility to buy their first home without having to take on excessive risk.

This is why our government, to date, has taken a wide array of actions to improve housing affordability. To help more young families take their first steps toward home ownership, our government is announcing targeted support to first-time homebuyers across the country in this budget and implemented through Bill C-97.

Through Bill C-97, we are introducing a first-time homebuyer incentive, a new program that will make home ownership more affordable for first-time buyers by allowing them to lower their monthly mortgage payments. The first-time homebuyer incentive will give eligible first-time homebuyers the option to finance a portion of their home directly with Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation. The program would provide up to $1.25 billion in shared equity mortgages to eligible borrowers over the next three years. The program would mean more a more affordable down payment, as well as more manageable mortgage payments.

Also, we are proposing to provide first-time homebuyers with greater access to their registered retirement savings plan to buy a home. Budget 2019 proposes to increase the home buyers' plan withdrawal limit to $35,000 from the current limit of $25,000. In a two-income family, that could mean up to $70,000 could be withdrawn from an RRSP to purchase a first home. This means more equity in a home, lower mortgage amounts and lower debt for Canadian families. I believe that is a smart investment and a smart policy tool that our government put in place.

This change will help first-time homebuyers achieve their dream of purchasing their very own home. When Canadians can take pride in the place that they hang their hats at the end of the day, they feel better about their community and their country.

In 2017, our government also launched the national housing strategy. It is the first of its kind in Canada, and it provides a range of new tools and programming to build, repair and renew Canada's stock of community and affordable housing. The strategy will create 100,000 new housing units and repair and renew 300,000 units. Simply put, Canada's national housing strategy is a $40-billion 10-year plan to help Canadians across the country access housing that meets their needs and that they can afford.

Most importantly, we need to ensure that Canadians have a safe, secure place and affordable place to call home so they can raise their families and have a brighter future for themselves and their children and grandchildren. As part of this strategy, our government also launched a $13.2-billion national housing co-investment fund that will assist vulnerable Canadians in accessing affordable housing. That includes survivors leaving violence, seniors, indigenous people, new immigrants and people with disabilities.

Through the national housing strategy, more Canadians will a have a safe and affordable place to call home, including in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge, where currently we have under construction an affordable development in which 162 units will be offered to individuals who need assistance. That is what Canada is about: helping those who need assistance and ensuring that we all have opportunities to succeed.

I am happy to say that Canadians have created over 900,000 jobs over the last few years. We have set the conditions for foreign direct investment and for domestic investment, which is at elevated levels. We are recovering from the oil crisis three years ago, and we see investments across the country, particularly here in Ontario.

In my riding, manufacturing firms are continuing to expand and are continuing to hire. When I visit these firms and enterprises, the biggest issue they have is that they cannot find enough labour. There are currently 540,000 job postings unfilled, according to Statistics Canada. That reflects the robustness of our job market and also demographics. People are retiring, and we need to replace them through a robust and secure immigration system.

Through the national housing strategy, more Canadians will have a safe and affordable place to call home. In fact, these measures are expected to lift 530,000 Canadians out of housing need. It will lift 825,000 Canadians out of poverty, which I think we need to talk about, because that is how we create a better Canada for all Canadians. It will help reduce chronic homelessness by half over the next 10 years.

I am proud to say that budget 2019 would build on these actions, helping more middle-class Canadians realize their dream of owning a home. To start, budget 2019 proposes to further expand the rental construction financing initiative with an additional $10 billion in financing over the next nine years. I am happy to report that this program is oversubscribed by individuals and developers building new rental construction.

We have not seen a lot of new rental construction over the last few years. In Canada, the housing market is a continuum, and we need a greater supply of rental housing, and through this program, we are getting it. The program will help build thousands of new units across Canada, with a particular focus on areas of low rental supply.

In recognition of barriers to developing new housing, budget 2019 also proposes a $300-million housing supply challenge. Through this challenge, the government will invite municipalities and other groups to propose new ways to break down the barriers that limit the creation of new housing. Those ideas will be added to our consultations on how we can best increase the housing supply.

To that point, budget 2019 proposes support for the recently announced expert panel on the future of housing supply and affordability, launched in partnership with the Province of British Columbia. The panel will be tasked with examining factors that limit housing availability and will be recommending actions governments can take to build better, more affordable and more inclusive communities.

Finally, to ensure that future investments in the housing supply are put to their best use possible, budget 2019, through Bill C-97, proposes that CMHC invest $5 million over two years in state-of-the-art modelling of housing supply and related data collection. That is what our government is doing on the supply side, because we know that greater supply is important in reducing costs.

Budget 2019 is also making the housing market more fair and more affordable for Canadians. After all, for many families, their homes are their most important assets, so ensuring a healthy, competitive and stable housing market for all is a priority for our government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated listening to what the member had to say, especially with regard to the national housing strategy. I am on the veterans affairs committee and serve as shadow deputy minister for Veterans Affairs. We have just been studying homelessness among veterans and have a report coming out very soon.

The thing that is disturbing to me is that the intent was there to study the issue, but absolutely no portion of the national housing strategy funds were targeted especially to our veterans, who we know, when they are homeless, suffer a great deal in trying to hold down jobs and take care of their families.

Why is there no funding earmarked for veterans in the national housing strategy?

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

Mr. Speaker, with regard to our veterans, they should be afforded every service possible. They made the ultimate sacrifice in terms of serving our country.

This would, in my view, encompass a whole-of-government approach. We have put billions of dollars toward mental health in the provinces, have developed the poverty reduction strategy and have implemented the pension for life for veterans, and this would be an additional step. It should be done.

We are building housing for vulnerable Canadians, including those suffering from mental health issues. We all know someone who has been impacted. Our veterans need to be provided the services the hon. member has indicated, much like other Canadians, and our affordable housing strategy is directed at that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge for his work on the finance committee when it comes to credit unions. He is also the all-party chair of the credit union caucus.

To that point, there were two promises made in the investing in the middle-class budget 2019 that were specifically requested in terms of regulatory reform, which the government committed to. In this budget implementation act, I see only one.

I would like clarification from the government member as to the rationale for not following through on the promises made on the floor of the House of Commons just a short time ago.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the chair of the all-party credit union caucus, I have also inquired as to why only one of the two measures introduced in the budget has been put into the BIA, and I hope to have an answer shortly.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, regardless of whether everything that was in the budget is in the budget implementation act, we have certainly set the direction we intend to go and where we will be after next October 21.

The member is a great member of the finance committee. I know he strongly fought for many of the things that are in the budget implementation act, especially those things that relate to challenging the tax reform in the United States to keep capital in Canada, attract capital to Canada and allow our businesses to be competitive on an equal playing field with the United States.

I wonder what the member has to say.

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

Mr. Speaker, Canadians will face a choice in a few months. One of the choices they will face is to continue to grow the economy with smart investments and smart policies, such as the accelerated capital cost allowance that was put in place in the fall economic statement; the adoption of measures to enhance skills training in Bill C-97; and increasing the earnings exemption for seniors to $5,000 and then by 50% from $5,000 to $15,000. That is a $1.76-billion investment in our seniors so they can stay in the workforce a little longer and keep their hard-earned money. Those are smart, targeted investments.

Between now and October 21, the choice will be clear: continue to grow the economy, or go backward to the last 10 years, when we saw very low growth rates, the lowest since the Great Depression, and not lifting Canadians out of poverty. We have lifted 825,000 of them out of poverty, and Canadians have created over 900,000 jobs, with the lowest unemployment rate in over 40 years.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

I am delighted to participate in the election year distraction budget debate, misleadingly, inappropriately labelled, when it was tabled, “Investing in the Middle Class”. This budget was everything we in the official opposition and most Canadians feared it would be. Instead of the balanced budget promised by the Prime Minister in his 2015 campaign, the deficit will hit $19.8 billion this year.

Instead of balance, the finance department estimates that the budget will not return to balance until 2040, and by then an additional $271 billion of debt will have been generated. According to the finance department, Canada's net debt this year reached an all-time high of $705 billion, or more than $50,000 for each Canadian family.

This budget was so sloppily assembled that the Department of Finance had to correct dozens of pages of tables and dozens of pages of sloppy math. Did the finance minister catch the mistakes, or did the President of the Treasury Board or even the Parliamentary Budget Officer? No, it was caught by the diligent Conservative member for Edmonton West, a private sector professional who came to the office after 30 years of experience responsibly reading spreadsheets and balancing budgets in the hospitality sector.

The original budget document tabled by the finance minister detailed $186 million in spending initiatives, but after a correction made quietly on the department's website after the MP's intervention, we see that spending will actually come to $311 million. With some $28 million more in underestimated costs, the mistake totalled almost as much as the original mistake, fully $153 million. The member for Edmonton West characterized it all, with very gentle understatement, as “pure carelessness”.

I will shift from the careless, the sloppy and the clumsy to a deliberate mistake in the Liberal budget 2019. I direct members to page 373 of the cover-up budget, a page with the main title “Business Income Tax Measures”, and the misleading subtitle “Support for Canadian Journalism”.

It is true that there are hundreds of millions of dollars, more than half a billion dollars, but they are, for the most part, allocated to yesterday's journalism, not tomorrow's, to print, big city and small community print, not to digital. These hundreds of millions of dollars, almost $600 million, will go only to Canadian journalistic organizations, which will have to apply to register for financial assistance and might be accepted by a Liberal-connected body as QCJOs, qualified Canadian journalism organizations.

The Liberal government is going to decide, through a commissioning body, which has not as yet been created, which struggling newspapers get money and which ones do not. I would remind the House that there has been, since this misguided adventure was previewed by the finance minister in the 2018 fall update, stark disagreement between owners, publishers and shareholders of struggling newspapers, large and small, and those journalists who actually generate news content.

As a former practitioner of the craft, I agree with journalists of all stripes who have vigorously rejected this Liberal election year bailout for some Canadian news organizations as an unacceptable, not to mention wasteful, intervention that will compromise, I believe, the independence of the craft. I share their opposition to the Liberal proposal of a panel of news experts who would distribute the hundreds of millions of dollars in election year beneficence by deciding which newsrooms are acceptable and which newsrooms are not.

Members may have read the columnist Andrew Coyne, who said, in noting that this misguided policy excludes anyone outside the existing Canadian newspaper industry, that it is designed for “not the future of news but the past; not the scrappy startups who might save the business, but the lumbering dinosaurs who are taking it down.”

The founder and editor of The Logic, one of those scrappy start-ups, David Skok, complains that the mandatory full-time status of journalists required for funding ignores the vital role freelance journalists play in the news ecosystem. Mr. Skok notes, in an editorial:

According to Statistics Canada, as of 2016, there are about 12,000 people who identify “journalist” as their profession. Of those, it’s safe to assume that the number of people not employed full-time with a newsroom is in the thousands.

Chantal Hébert, whose primary employer, the Toronto Star, will very likely be designated a qualified recipient of Liberal beneficence, said, “The government's half-a-billion package will not resolve the crisis that newsrooms face. It may end up doing little more than delaying the inevitable.”

Ms. Hébert further stated that “...among the ranks of the political columnists, many fear it is a poison pill that will eventually do the news industry more harm than good.”

I fully agree.

The finance minister cannot justify his $600-million election-year bailout because he has no idea of what will happen after his subsidized transition period. That is unacceptable and it is wasteful, because intervention should have a goal of not only long-term survival of print but long-term sustainability of the evolving craft of journalism. The transformation and survival of robust, independent journalism platforms in Canada will require bold adjustments and political leadership, but how can any news organization be truly independent if it becomes dependent on government subsidies, temporary slush-fund tax relief or direct cash bailouts?

I will close my remarks as I began, with disappointment in an election year debate on a budget that promises much in desperation but delivers many more dire costs to the Canadian economy than meaningful benefits.

This budget, as I said, was everything that Canadians feared it would be. Instead of the balanced budget promised by the Prime Minister four years ago, the deficit will this year hit $19.8 billion, and instead of balance, the finance department estimates the budget will not return to balance until 2040.

This budget will not distract from the broken promises, the fiscal incompetence, the legislative clumsiness, the empty virtue-signalling, the imposed narrow ideological values from a Liberal government that as its alpha and omega has bookended ethical lapses and moral corruption from day one until now.

Only two first-term majority governments in all of Canadian history have been defeated and denied a second term. I believe this budget and the ever-deepening scandal that has overshadowed it have set the stage for the current sorry Liberal government to join those historic losers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that might be the author for many of the Conservatives' spin doctors on the other side of the curtain. It is quite a litany of inaccuracies, to say the very least.

Let me try to put a little reality into the situation.

Back in 2015, the Liberal Party committed, first and foremost, to work hard day after day for Canada's middle class, and we have seen that every budget, government regulation and government legislation has had a profound positive impact. One of the tools we could use to measure that is that by working with Canadians, in excess of 925,000 new jobs have been created in Canada. We have lifted thousands of children out of poverty and thousands of seniors out of poverty. We have given tax breaks to Canada's middle class, which the Conservative Party voted against, and we have seen an increase in taxes on Canada's wealthiest 1%.

This is a government that listens to Canadians, not only during elections but in between elections, and that is why I anxiously await the election in October 2019, believing that Canadians will see what this government has done and hopefully reward us with another four-year mandate.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first let me say I will ignore the suggestion of the hon. member that I had assistance in composing my remarks here today. Again this is characteristic of the drive-by smears and character assassinations that we have seen in recent weeks in this House as the Liberals, even including the member for Winnipeg North, begin to worry about the possibility that they may not return here in November of this year.

As I said in my remarks, from the beginning, the government has broken every fiscal promise it has made. It has committed to sending billions of dollars offshore to build infrastructure in Asia and to create infrastructure in Canada that is not needed, even while it has had trouble pushing dollars out the door to assist the infrastructure in Canada that it has promised in successive budgets. I think the sorry Liberal government's record speaks for itself, and when my friend goes to knock on doors, he will learn that the middle class is not nearly as satisfied as he claims them to be with the performance for the past four years of the current Liberal government.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what does the member think of the government's plans, if there are any, for the Canadian auto industry? The only thing I remember in the budget on that are the rebates or the help for people who buy electric vehicles. I am all in favour of that, but it specifically excludes the one electric vehicle built in Canada, which missed out by a couple of thousand dollars, in helping that industry. That was followed immediately by Chrysler cutting back significantly on its jobs in Windsor.

Could he comment on the lack of a plan from the government in this budget for the auto industry in Canada?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly need very little prompting to comment on the empty words of concern that we have heard from the government, from the finance minister and from the ministers of ministries that should be tasked with assisting and ensuring that good, quality Canadian automotive industry jobs are protected, preserved and that there is growth.

We have seen how laggardly, how tardy the Liberal ministers were in attending the General Motors plant in Oshawa when the first shock announcement came of the eventual closure, the downsizing of that of plant. We have also seen the lack of interest in supporting the industry and the plants in Windsor.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise to speak in this place and more so to speak to this Liberal budget.

As we know, the the Liberal 2015 campaign promise was to deliver three years of modest $10 billion a year deficits with a return to a balanced budget in 2019.

Let us remind ourselves that this was a promise the Prime Minister himself said was "very cast in stone", not somewhat cast in stone, not a little bit cast in stone, but very cast in stone.

In this budget, the 2019-20 deficit forecast is set close to $19.8 billion. This is on top of the $60 billion in deficits added in the first three Liberal budgets. The current budget indicates there is no path to balance until at the very least 2040, and by that point racking up an additional $271 billion in new debt.

There are words as a parliamentarian that I do not like to use, and many of those words describe the Prime Minister's broken promise to Canadians.

As every person in this chamber well knows, the reality is that the Prime Minister did not even try to honour his promise. That is a Prime Minister who will basically promise anything if at the time he believes it is what Canadians want to hear. On this point, Canadians want a government that will live within its means.

However, we are not here to debate the Prime Minister's broken promises. We are here to debate this budget, and on that point I do have some serious concerns.

Let me start with household debt.

Aside from the fact this budget is silent on it, I would submit it will only serve to increase it. Why is household debt a problem? After the Liberals first year in government, household debt, as a percentage of gross income in 2016, was 166%. In January of 2019, that increased to a whopping 176%. Let us think about that for a moment. Canadian household debt is now 176% of gross household income.

In spite of the Liberal government spending over $60 billion to date, people continue to fall further and further behind. Keep in mind we are not talking about the government debt being added onto their backs that one day somehow they will have to pay. We are talking about household debt.

How is that a concern in this budget? One example is the new Canada training benefit. On the surface, it sounds like a good thing. What could be wrong with encouraging job skills retraining?

When we read the fine print, only $250 is available per year up to a career maximum of $5,000. The challenge that I am already hearing is that the majority of training programs cost well in excess of that amount. Many skills training programs are literally thousands of dollars or more. For many workers to benefit from this $250 training credit, it means borrowing thousands of dollars and increasing household debt.

Similarly, to access the credit of $5,000 toward the purchase of a new electric car for most would mean borrowing up to the maximum for the program amount of $45,000. This again results in more household debt for anyone borrowing for a new vehicle purchase.

A similar situation is created with the new homebuyers program. Rather than simply eliminate the GST on affordable new housing, which has been done with the provincial sales tax in British Columbia and which would save people money, this budget only offers more options that encourage borrowing. That means borrowing $10,000 more from an RRSP up to a maximum of $35,000. How many new homebuyers have a spare $35,000 kicking around in an RRSP? This is not the reality for most new homebuyers.

The new first-time homebuyers incentive on the surface looks helpful. The program can help provide between 5% and 10% of the down payment toward a maximum CMHC insurable mortgage up to $480,000. That is not counting the total down payment.

The challenge for this program is also in the fine print. The maximum $480,000 mortgage value is based on the program's maximum allowable household income level of $120,000 annually. However, in a community where the average household income is $70,000, the maximum value under this program is set at four times the income. Therefore, the CMHC insurable mortgage limit is just $280,000, which is a significant difference.

Here is the great frustration: Housing markets throughout Canada have been severely impacted by the changes made by the current Liberal government largely because of housing markets in just two Canadian cities. However, with this signature program, even at the maximum $480,000, it will not make a dent in housing affordability in places like Vancouver or Toronto. In fact, it will most help in areas where housing is comparably already affordable. As public policy goes, this is an expensive one and a misguided one. CMHC told us at the technical briefing that it will have to borrow in order to finance this program.

These are just a few of the examples that all point toward increased household debt in order to access the benefits of these programs. Ironically, these programs are being offered in a budget with a $19.8-billion deficit, which means that the current Liberal government is borrowing money it does not have, which, as I have just demonstrated, will in many cases cause people to borrow money they do not have just to access these program benefits. That, my friends, is not good governance.

There is also another major missing part of this budget, which is any type of fiscal strategy to deal with Canadian competitiveness. We are hearing increasingly of plant closures, production shifts being eliminated, and of Canadian companies not investing here in Canada but in the United States and elsewhere. To be clear, the Liberals were warned. We know that the Department of Finance's own figures warned that the Liberals' enhanced CPP program would be a drag on the Canadian economy at least until 2030.

Now, we do not know what precisely the Liberals' carbon tax will do to the economy, but we do know that the Liberals are increasingly giving Canada's worst polluters carbon tax breaks. The Toronto Star has reported that polluting industries, such as cement, iron and steel manufacturing, lime production and nitrogen fertilizers, will get carbon relief based on a 90% industry average. Firms in other industries that emit at least 50 kilotonnes of greenhouse gas per year will get relief based on 80%. In New Brunswick, the federal government gave a 95.5% carbon tax relief to a dirty coal-powered plant.

Almost every day we hear the environment minister and the Prime Minister talk about putting a price on pollution, but of course, they do not talk about the growing list of exemptions and breaks for the worst polluters. Of course, our major competitors and trade partners do not have a carbon tax. Meanwhile, we continue to watch investment in these countries growing while this budget sits back and proposes no solutions.

I get that it is an election budget designed to buy people's votes with their own money. I also get that the Liberals who once promised a balanced budget now call that concept “austerity”. It is bewildering but true to hear any discussion that talks about living within our means described by the finance minister as an austerity measure. At some point, the Liberal government is going to need to reconcile this with reality.

All of this deficit spending was not spent during a time of world financial crises. Further, despite all the deficit spending, the Bank of Canada forecasts are crystal clear. Our economy is slowing down at an alarming rate, and this budget proposes nothing to address that, I think, in part, because the finance minister does not believe these things to be true, yet we all know that they are. It is another denial budget, spending money that Canadians do not have, and it is not a budget that I can support.

Therefore, I move:

That the House do now adjourn.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #1296

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I declare the motion defeated.

It being 5:45 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from April 11 consideration of the motion that Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Scarborough Centre.

It is a pleasure to rise in the House to speak to budget 2019, Bill C-97.

For the past four years, our government has invested in Canadians and in what matters to them the most. Budget 2019 continues that plan by investing in something that matters to all Canadians: their health. We all know the sinking feeling that comes when you hear a loved one is sick or badly hurt. The clock seems to stop and it is hard to think about anything else, especially about how much money there is saved in the bank. However, the sad reality is that too many Canadians have to think about finances in moments of such dread.

We are proud of our publicly funded universal health care system, connecting Canadians with the best health care system and connecting Canadians with the best doctors, nurses and health care providers based on their needs. However, when it comes to prescription drugs, not everyone has access to what they need to regain and maintain their health.

Many middle-class Canadians, and those struggling hard to join the middle class, cannot afford the prescription drugs they need. No one should have to choose between putting food on the table and buying prescription drugs. Therefore, our system can and must be improved, because when prescription drugs are unaffordable, it leads to poorer health for many Canadians and higher health care costs for all of us.

It is true that most Canadians have some form of public or private drug coverage. However, the nature of that coverage varies significantly from person to person across the country. Therefore, to improve the accessibility and affordability of prescription medications, the government announced, in budget 2018, the creation of an advisory council. This council is providing advice on how to implement the national pharmacare plan in a manner that is affordable for Canadians, employers and governments. With budget 2019, we are laying the foundation for the implementation of a national pharmacare program while we await the final report by our advisory council on its full implementation.

Based on the consultation and interim report of the advisory council on the implementation of national pharmacare, our government intends to work with provinces, territories, the private sector and other partners on three foundational elements: first, create the Canadian drug agency that will assess drug effectiveness and negotiate prices; second, establish an evidence-based list of prescribed drugs, a list of drugs Canadians can access, to be developed as part of the agency; and third, establish a national strategy for high-cost drugs for rare diseases.

I will speak about these three items, specific measures and, should I have some time remaining, I would like to take a quick aside to discuss budget 2019's strong emphasis on issues facing seniors in communities like mine.

I will start with the first foundational element: assessing drug effectiveness and negotiating prices.

The new Canadian drug agency, through its ability to negotiate prices, will lead to lower prices for prescription drugs. That is very good news, because right now, Canada faces some of the highest drug costs in the world. Costs have risen dramatically over the last three decades. Prescription drug spending in Canada was about $2.5 billion in 1985. In 2018, it was nearly $34 billion and the costs keep rising.

Canada's current patchwork of drug coverage is not well equipped to handle the increasingly expensive drugs coming into the market. There are over 100 public prescription drug insurance companies in Canada and over 100,000 private insurance plans.

The Canadian drug agency would help make things better by negotiating drug prices on behalf of Canada's drug plans. The agency would also assess the effectiveness of new prescription drugs and recommend which drugs represented the best value for money for Canadians. For the first time in Canada, drug evaluation and price negotiation could be carried out by one single entity. This was one of the initial recommendations included in the interim report of the advisory council on the implementation of national pharmacare.

The Canadian drug agency would be established in partnership with provinces, territories and all other stakeholders. It would build on existing provincial successes by acting as a single evaluator and negotiator on behalf of Canada's drug plans.

The proposed agency could help to considerably reduce drug spending. The Canadian drug agency could, in the long term, lead to billions of dollars in savings on prescription drug costs each year. In short, the Canadian drug agency could be a powerful tool for addressing the rising cost of prescription drugs across Canada.

The second foundational element is establishing a new national formulary for prescribed drugs. While the Canadian drug agency's key responsibility would be the development of a national formulary, the agency would work in partnership with provinces, territories and other stakeholders to develop a comprehensive, evidence-based list of prescribed drugs. This would provide the basis for a consistent approach to formulary listings and patient access across the country. Therefore, budget 2019 proposes to provide Health Canada with $35 million over four years to establish a transition office to support the development of this vision.

The third foundational element is making high-cost drugs for rare diseases more accessible. I would like to discuss what budget 2019 would mean for Canadians who require high-cost prescription drugs to treat their diseases. For these Canadians, the cost of the medication they need can be astronomical.

It is worth noting that rare diseases predominantly affect children. These diseases are often genetically based and appear in early childhood. More than 7,000 rare diseases have been identified to date. However each one of them affects a relatively small number of patients, which makes decisions on drug approval and coverage very difficult. The list price of some of these drugs often exceeds $100,000 per patient per year. In some cases, it is even more. This obviously creates significant distress for these patients and their families.

These costs also represent significant challenges for the government and private drug plans when it comes to making decisions on whether and how to pay for the treatment. This can lead to challenges for many provinces and territories looking to help families. This is why we need a national approach to drugs for rare diseases.

Canada's national strategy will be created in partnership, again, with the provinces and territories. It will allow for a coordinated approach for gathering and evaluating evidence, improve consistency in decision-making and access across the country, and ensure that effective treatments reach the patients who need them the most.

Budget 2019 proposes up to $1 billion over two years, starting in 2022, with up to $500 million per year ongoing, to help Canadians with rare diseases.

I know I have less than one minute left, so I would like to speak briefly about seniors and how those in my riding will be impacted.

Our government is increasing the GIS exemption from $3,500 to $5,000 per year to give more of our fixed-income seniors the choice to continue to work without being penalized. We will begin proactive CPP enrolment at age 70 to ensure that no seniors miss out on benefits they are entitled to.

We are increasing transparency and will launch an initiative to change corporate laws to increase oversight and grant the courts a greater ability to review payments made to executives in the lead-up to insolvency, protecting workplace pensions from predatory practices.

In conclusion, like many of my colleagues, I look forward to reading the final report of the advisory council on the implementation of national pharmacare, which is due later this spring.

Moving forward, national pharmacare will help lead to protecting the health of every Canadian.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague realizes that he spent much of his speech talking about pharmacare and the fact that the Liberals have been promising universal pharmacare for nearly 25 years now. In his speech, the member asked Canadians and the House to wait a bit longer for the advisory council's report. Canadians have been waiting for this program forever.

Can the member explain why, after nearly 25 years, the Liberals are still not ready to keep their promise and why they keep calling for more meetings, more discussion groups and more analysis? What more could they possibly need after 25 years? What is the problem?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot talk about the past 25 years, but I can talk about what our government has done. Our government, shortly after coming to power, started the process for pharmacare. Almost all members within our caucus are very supportive of pharmacare.

I draw on my background as a management consultant. One does not launch such a huge initiative by blindly coming up with a plan or an act. One does consultations and puts a tough advisory team together. The research is done and a decision is made.

We are looking forward to seeing the report, but I can assure members that from the first step taken to the recommendations that have been made, we are well on our way to being able to implement national pharmacare.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Richmond Hill for his work as the chair of the all-party mental health caucus.

As he knows, suicide has a profound effect in Canada. For every suicide death, there are five self-inflicted injury hospitalizations, 25 to 30 attempts and seven to 10 people profoundly affected by suicide loss.

Could the hon. member comment on the Government of Canada's investments in mental health, particularly for suicide prevention programs, in budget 2019?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member for Guelph's strong advocacy on the mental health file and his unyielding support for this initiative.

In budget 2019, our government announced a pan-Canadian suicide prevention service. It is about $25 million over five years, with another $5 million per year thereafter.

The most important thing is that there were other initiatives in 2017 and 2018 vis-à-vis mental health. In 2017, the largest investment in mental health was tabled, with $11 billion over 10 years to support home care as well as mental health. Specifically, about $5 billion went to mental health. In budget 2018, about $20 million over five years was committed to projects focused on seniors and women living with dementia.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Richmond Hill for his speech.

I have been the MP for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier for three and a half years now, having started at the same time as this Liberal government. I will pick up where my NDP colleague left off. He mentioned that it has been 25 years. Speaking personally, for the past three and a half years, I have been listening to the Liberals say that they are going to start a process, hold consultations, establish a council, create wide-ranging initiatives, set up a team and develop policies. They talk about 2022 and beyond.

How can we trust this government, which has been in power for three and a half years? What do I tell the seniors in my riding who want real help today?

This Liberal government has nothing concrete to offer. How can it be proud of what its Minister of Finance has introduced?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first let me say how proud I am of the accomplishments of our government.

One thing the hon. member has to remember is that this is a partnership. I emphasized that in my speech a number of times. This is not something we can do overnight, and this is not something we can do alone. It requires partnership, and it requires making sure that we spend the time needed to do it right.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity to speak at length in this place for some time, and I am happy to have the opportunity to rise today on Bill C-97 to speak to some of the initiatives in our government's budget that are going to make a difference for my constituents in Scarborough Centre.

This is our government's fourth budget, and it is the continuation of the plan Canadians voted for in 2015, a plan that is working.

Back in 2015, Canadians had a choice between Conservative and NDP plans for austerity and cuts and a Liberal plan for investing in growing the middle class and those working hard to join it. Canadians chose to invest in our future, and their decision is paying off. Today Canada's economy is one of the fastest growing in the G7. Since 2015, Canadians have created more than 900,000 new jobs. Thanks to the middle-class tax cut and the tax-free Canada child benefit, Canadian families have more money in their pockets to help make ends meet.

However, we recognize that our work is not yet done. We need to ensure that all Canadians share in the growing prosperity. That means being able to find an affordable place to live, getting the skills to find a well-paying job and being able to retire with confidence. That is why it is important that we do not allow the clock to be turned back to the Harper era and that we keep investing in Canadians and in our future.

Before I get to some of those investments, allow me to touch on another area of focus in budget 2019: keeping Canadians safe from violence and hate. Canadians of all backgrounds and identities should always feel safe together. Unfortunately, as recent tragic events have demonstrated, certain groups of people, because of their race, religion or sexual orientation, are at risk of being targeted by hate-motivated crimes, threatening their safety and security and the gathering places they enjoy.

To help community gathering spaces, such as schools, community centres and places of worship, make needed security improvements, we would double the annual funding for the security infrastructure program, from $2 million per year to $4 million per year. Several faith organizations in Scarborough Centre have already leveraged this program to upgrade their security infrastructure, and I encourage all eligible institutions to take advantage of this program.

We all know that diversity is one of Canada's strengths, but sadly, we know that Canada is not immune to the effects of hateful rhetoric. That is why budget 2019 would invest $45 million to support a new anti-racism strategy. It would work to find ways to counter racism in its various forms, with a strong focus on community-based projects.

While we cannot be blind to the threats, I know that most of my fellow Canadians are warm and welcoming people who reject fear, racism and division. What unites us all is our shared desire to provide opportunities for families, and this budget would make a number of important investments in that regard.

Perhaps the biggest issue I hear about at the door in Scarborough is housing. Buying a home is increasingly out of reach for the average family, and rental housing is often outdated, overpriced and inadequate for the needs of many families.

Everyone deserves a safe and affordable place to live, but in the greater Toronto area, too many are being priced out of the market. The Harper government did nothing to address housing affordability for 10 years. The Conservatives were missing in action, leaving the provinces, the municipalities and community organizations to try to pick up the slack. However, with our 10-year, $40-billion national housing strategy, the federal government is finally back at the table when it comes to housing.

I had the opportunity to join the Prime Minister and the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development in Scarborough, where our government committed $1.3 billion to help repair and renovate more than 58,000 Toronto community housing units. This will allow for long-delayed repairs to be completed and will improve the quality of life for thousands of Toronto families. We would build on these investments in budget 2019.

The new first-time homebuyer incentive will make home ownership more affordable for first-time homebuyers and allow them to lower their monthly mortgages. On a newly built $400,000 home, this new incentive could save an eligible homebuyer up to $40,000, or 10%, of the total cost. We expect as many as 100,000 Canadians could benefit from this program over the next three years, putting the dream of home ownership back within reach.

I have spoken with independent experts in the real estate industry who tell me this program will mean more families will be able to enter the housing market, especially younger families just starting out, families like Sameer Ahmed in my riding, whose wife and three children are crammed today in a two-bedroom apartment. They can now dream of a home in which their family has the room to grow and thrive. The more flexible homebuyer plan will let Canadians borrow an additional $10,000 from their RRSPs, raising the limit to $35,000, providing more flexibility for Canadians.

For Canadians looking to rent rather than buy, increased funding for rental construction finance initiatives means 42,500 new rental units across Canada. It is so important that we build capacity in the rental housing market where supply far outstrips demand and much of the existing supply is increasingly old and out of date.

I am also excited about the Canada training benefit. It is an initiative very similar to one brought as a policy to last spring's Liberal policy convention developed by a group of youth in my riding. It addressed a challenge identified by many of their peers, the challenge of lifelong learning and re-skilling for an ever-changing economy throughout our lives.

To ensure Canadians have the skills they need to get the well-paying jobs of the new economy, we are introducing the Canada training benefit. Canadians earning less than $150,000 can accumulate up to $5,000 tax-free over their lives, at a rate of $250 per year, to help with the cost of enrolling in a training program. Every four years, they can take up to four weeks of training to upgrade their skills and progress in their careers. With the EI training support benefit, they will get help with living expenses while on training leave. New leave provisions will ensure their jobs are safe.

While Canadians will need to supplement these resources with their own, this program will make it much easier for Canadian workers to invest in their careers and in themselves.

Speaking of young Canadians, we are helping our youth get ahead by lowering interest rates for student loans, saving the average borrower $2,000. We are also making the six-month grace period after graduation interest-free. If students temporarily leave their studies to have a child or deal with health issues, that period is now interest-free, too. We are helping students gain real-world experience by creating up to 40,000 annual new work placements and another 44,000 work-integrated work opportunities for Canadian students.

While the Conservatives were only focused on pushing back the age of retirement, we are committed to supporting seniors. With this budget, we are making their lives more affordable. We are ensuring that working seniors can keep more of their hard-earned income by enhancing the guaranteed income supplement earnings exemption. We are increasing the earnings exemption from $3,500 to $5,000, extending the exemption to include self-employment income, and introducing a 50% exemption in income between $5,000 and $15,000.

To fight social isolation and help seniors stay active and engaged in the community, we are increasing funding for the new horizons for seniors program. This program funds community-based projects designed to meet the needs of local seniors. I have seen first-hand in Scarborough the benefits this program brings to local seniors. For example, the Sesheme Foundation is using a new horizons grant to familiarize seniors with technology and help arm them with valuable financial literacy skills.

As I said earlier, our plan is working. I know this because, since 2015, 825,000 Canadians have been lifted out of poverty and Canada's poverty rate has dropped by more than 20%.

As I also said earlier, there is still more work to do. That is why we have launched Canada's first-ever poverty reduction strategy. Under this strategy, we are setting poverty reduction targets and entrenching Canada's official poverty line and the National Advisory Council on Poverty into law.

I could go on and on about the positive elements in this budget implementation act. Instead, let me just say that I am proud to be part of a government that is investing in Canadians. Truly, there can be no better bet than to bet on Canada.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things missing in budget 2019 has to do with diabetes. Eleven million Canadians have diabetes or pre-diabetes. Diabetes Canada came with an ask for the budget for its 360 plan to address this chronic disease, yet there is nothing in the budget.

Could the member explain why the government is not supporting that initiative or will she commit that it will?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this government has committed to many health initiatives for mental health and home care. In 2017, it committed over $11 billion in mental health and home care. That is helping seniors have a life where they can be more healthy and can continue to live in their homes. It is really making a difference in the lives of those seniors.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. She emphasized that we need to work together to fight racism, xenophobia and intolerance. Naturally, we on this side of the House support that fight.

To govern is to make choices. For instance, we have a government that continues to tax medicinal cannabis, which sick Canadians need for pain relief. Now it is giving Loblaws $12 million to buy some refrigerators.

I do not understand why a company that made $3 billion in profit last year needs our money, public money, to buy new refrigerators, while the government continues to tax sick Canadians who need cannabis for health reasons.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have lowered taxes for the middle-class. We are investing in the middle class. Since 2015, when Liberals came into power, Canadians have created over 900,000 new jobs. Canada has the fastest growing economy in the G7. As well, we take diversity as one of our greatest strengths and we will fight for that, regardless of where people came from or when they arrived in Canada. This is a land of opportunities for everyone.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Scarborough Centre for talking about the issues that matter most to Canadians. These are pocketbook issues like making home ownership affordable and helping working get their skills.

I would like her to talk about how the government is helping young people in her riding get the skills they need to get the jobs of the future.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with the changing economy, everyone needs to be equipped for the jobs of the future. The Canada training credit would allow workers to upgrade their skills so they could have the more successful jobs of the future.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows in the House, we had significant job losses in Oshawa when the plant there announced that it would be closing. I have looked through this budget and it does not seem to address any of the issues for which manufacturers have asked, such as the competitiveness of the Canadian economy, especially with this new carbon tax. Many people still do not understand how high it will be.

Could the member point out if there is anything in the budget that addresses the competitive disadvantage of Canadians? If she cannot, could she at least let us know what the carbon tax is going to be by 2030 so companies that are making once-in-a-generation investments know what the costs are going to be in Canada?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, climate change is a reality today and for our future generations, we have to accept that reality.

Pollution cannot be free. There has to be a price on pollution. There will be a rebate to all families through climate action incentives. For example, in Ontario, a family of four will receive a climate action incentive of $307 for the price on pollution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am actually sad to rise today on Bill C-97, because this is really a symbol of what the last four years have been like under the Liberal government.

The subtitle of this budget implementation bill is the budget of broken promises, and that is very apt. For four years, we have seen Liberals break promise after promise, commitment after commitment. I remember back in 2015 when the Prime Minister and the Liberals were campaigning. They promised a vast number of things.

The Liberals promised they would actually take care of the middle class. They promised they would bring new dignity to Parliament, that they would stop the systematic bulldozing of legislation through Parliament and that they would listen to opposition members of Parliament. Among many other broken promises, and we could reference pharmacare and democratic reform, they also promised never to bring in omnibus legislation.

The parliamentary secretary talks about ominous legislation, and he is quite right. Omnibus legislation does a profound disservice to the country and it does a profound disservice to Canadians. We only have to look at last year's omnibus bill, which the Liberals rammed through provisions designed to undermine what should be a principle of Canadian law, that if people broke the law, whether it was bribery or any other criminal act, they would be subject to consequences. However, what the Liberals slipped into the omnibus legislation, which they promptly bulldozed through Parliament, were provisions that would allow for companies like SNC-Lavalin to get off scot-free if there was not an attorney general willing to stand up to the Prime Minister and his people.

We have seen this whole sad SNC-Lavalin scandal play out as a result of that Liberal attempt to usurp parliamentary oversight. We raised questions about those provisions, but because the Liberals, with their majority government, bulldozed the budget implementation bill through last year, Canadians were not given the opportunity to really voice their displeasure about setting up what was a dual system in law. Rich corporations can break the law and do not have to worry, because the Prime Minister will let them off the hook.

What happens in this budget implementation bill? First, of course, the promise about not bringing in omnibus legislation is broken yet again. It is something the Liberals have broken four years in a row now. It is 364 pages. In the provisions of this budget implementation bill, we see the poison pills, legislation no Canadian would support the passage of if it were to stand on its own.

I will reference what my colleague from Vancouver East raised yesterday in a point of order about the provisions to undermine the ability of people fleeing persecution and extreme violence to apply for refugee status in Canada. What the Liberals have done, and extreme white nationalists are now complimenting the Liberals on the provisions that are deeply hidden in the budget implementation bill, is basically take away the right of refugees to cross the border because of what has happened under the Trump administration in the United States, that persecution of minorities we are seeing. The sad persecution undertaken by Mr. Trump and his allies in Washington is something Canadians reject, however, the Liberals have adopted and embraced it.

Instead of eliminating the safe third country agreement that allow refugees to apply when they are being forced out of the United States or forced back to situations of extreme peril, the Liberals have basically closed off the ability of those refugees to come to the border and apply for refugee status.

I think all of us, as human beings, understand what these refugees are escaping: profound violence and war, systematic sexual violence, a whole range of indignities and appalling situations that, fortunately, some people are able to escape.

They come to North America. They also come to the United States, which used to be a beacon of freedom. In fact, years ago, my grandfather arrived at Ellis Island, in the shadow of the Statue of Liberty, to apply to enter the United States. He stayed in the United States and worked for a number of years, and then went back to Europe to get his family and came to Canada.

The United States used to be a beacon of welcome and freedom, typified by the Statue of Liberty. However, under the Trump administration, those doors have now been shut down and closed to those escaping persecution and violence.

Canada could have been that beacon of freedom by simply removing the safe third country agreement. Instead, by hiding items in the provisions of the budget implementation act, the Liberals have taken the kind of action that finds approval only from white nationalists, those with hatred in their hearts. This is appalling, and it is just one of the symptoms of how far the Liberal government has fallen.

The reality is that for the vast majority of Canadians, it has been four very difficult years. They were hoping that after the years of Harper cutbacks and massive handouts to the business sector and large, profitable corporations, the Liberals would keep their commitments and respond to people's needs. However, the budget implementation act is, again, a symbol of how far they have fallen from that goal, which Canadians elected them to achieve.

What have we seen over the last few years? It has been massive corporate handouts, symbolized by the $12 million given to Loblaws, one of Canada's richest corporations. My colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie just asked about this, with no response from the Liberals, as usual. However, that $12 million pales in comparison to the tens of billions of dollars that this Liberal government has shovelled out the door and given to some of the most profitable and wealthy corporations in the country.

One example is Kinder Morgan. Not only did the Liberals buy its pipeline, but they gave out a bonus of billions of dollars, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. They bought a piece of infrastructure and gave a bonus to Kinder Morgan executives. This is billions of dollars that could have gone to housing, pharmacare or helping the appalling situations in indigenous communities.

The Liberals did not bat an eye as billions of dollars went out the door. About $14 billion was given out last fall in the fall economic update as a gift to corporate executives on Bay Street. The Liberals pushed $14 billion out the door with no thought about whether doing so was in the public interest.

This does not even touch for a moment the intricate system of tax havens and tax loopholes that Liberals and Conservatives have put in place over the years. Canadians are left with an estimated $20 billion to $30 billion going offshore each year.

What is the result? For the corporate sector, it means the lowest effective tax rate in the industrialized world, at 9%. This is the estimated tax rate paid by Canada's wealthiest and most profitable corporations. This is far below any other industrialized country, because we have a porous and profoundly unjust tax system.

For corporate executives, it is the best of times. They are partying big, because they know that all of our resources are coming their way.

The missed opportunity in this budget implementation act and in the budget itself was to take any meaningful action that would actually make a difference in people's lives.

I have raised the names of two individuals a number of times in the House. I have done so because they are symptomatic of so many Canadians living in the same situation. I have often spoken about Jim, who is just off Parliament Hill on the bridge between the Château Laurier and Parliament Hill. Every day Liberal ministers, Liberal MPs and the Prime Minister's limousine go right by Jim. He sits begging in his wheelchair, trying to get enough money to survive for another month by buying the medication his doctor has prescribed to him. He needs it to stay alive. He needs it to be with his children and grandchildren. Because he is on a limited fixed income that barely pays for rent and food, he is obliged to beg for the $580 a month that keeps him in medication and keeps him alive.

What a shameful symbol. It is unbelievable that for four years Liberals have walked past him with hardly a thought about Jim as they walk past him and his sign asking people to please contribute.

Maybe some of them give a few dollars—I do not know, but what I do know is that if Liberals had come in 2015 with the intent to carry out their commitments, Jim would have pharmacare now. His medication would be paid for now. He would not need to beg to get the money to get through the month.

If Liberals had kept their promises, someone like Jim would no longer have to worry about that. He would be able to contribute as he wants to, spend his time volunteering in the community and spend time with his family. His family is low-income too, so he has said very clearly that he has to do this because he does not want to burden his family. What a tragic choice to make for the entire family, and it was imposed on Jim by the Liberal government and the Prime Minister.

I talked in the House before about Heather, who is struggling to find affordable housing and is worried about losing her apartment any month now. As rents skyrocket in the Lower Mainland in the New Westminster—Burnaby area, she shares a one-bedroom apartment with her mother and with her daughter, and they are struggling to get by. She is struggling to keep a roof over her head. She is like so many others in the Lower Mainland, in greater Toronto and right across this country.

In any indigenous community we see the absolutely deplorable state of housing. If Liberals four years ago had come with the intent of actually keeping their promises, they would have done something that the member for Burnaby South and the entire NDP caucus have been proposing, which is to build affordable housing. Do as we did after the Second World War, when we had governments at that time that actually listened to the public.

When hundreds of thousands of men and women in the service were coming back to Canada, the federal government built not one, or 10, or 100, or 1,000, or 10,000 units. Over three years, it built 300,000 affordable homes for those returning men and women in the service, because Canadians knew and still know that there is an important responsibility that comes with power. At that time after the Second World War, that government got it right.

One of those homes is the one my wife and I live in on Glover Avenue in New Westminster, and it is still a very good home today. If Liberals had wanted to keep the commitments that they made in 2015, they would have built hundreds of thousands of units, just as we did after the Second World War, and people like Heather would be safe in affordable housing. They would not be worried about whether they would still have their apartment in a month or two months or three months. If the government had done the right thing, housing would be provided now to every Canadian, and every Canadian would have a roof over their head and would feel safe in their housing.

However, the Liberals did not do any of that. They made a commitment in the budget act to do something eventually if they are re-elected. It is the same with pharmacare. They will fill in some of the holes after they are re-elected. They have a callous disregard for what Canadians are living through.

We have seen the figures. They show that things are getting worse, not better, yet Liberals stand in the House and say everything is great. Excuse me, but when statistics come out, as they did a few weeks ago, showing that 46% of Canadians are $200 away in any given month from not being able to pay their expenses, we have to think about that for a moment. It is half the Canadian population.

It may be $200 for a car repair, or perhaps something they have to contribute at school. It may be a health problem. Goodness knows, they do not have access to pharmacare, and if they have to pay for medication, a $200 margin is all they have before they go even more deeply in debt. Canada now has, after 20 or 30 years of Conservative and Liberal governments, the worst record in the industrialized world for the level of family debt.

All of this splurging on Bay Street, these massive tax handouts that are given left, right and centre, have left a decimated middle class. It is not only the worst family debt crisis in our nation's history; it is the worst family debt crisis in any industrialized nation's history. Canadians are struggling under massive levels of family debt. They are trying to pay for their homes and having to borrow to stay in their homes. They are trying to pay for school or for their children to go to university or college and they are struggling and going further into debt. They are going into debt to pay for their medication. They are going into debt for a wide variety of basic needs that are no longer met by our federal government in any way, shape or form.

What we have with this budget implementation act is a powerful symbol of four years of inaction by the current Liberal government, four years of betrayal and four years of broken promises. I think that on October 21, Canadians will judge the Liberals on those broken promises.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

We will interrupt now for question period. However, the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby will have three minutes and 50 seconds coming to him when we return, and we will take up the questions then.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby has three minutes and 50 seconds remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, before we were interrupted by question period, I was talking about how this BIA was really a budget of broken promises. It systematically shows how many times over the last four years the Liberal government has betrayed its commitments to try to do something that would be supportive of regular Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

We have raised the issue of pharmacare in the House numerous times, as has the leader of the NDP, the member for Burnaby South. The fact that we do not have pharmacare after four years of a Liberal government shows the paucity of the Liberals' ideas and their ability to carry them forward.

We have not seen any investments in affordable housing in any meaningful way. Members will recall that it was the former Liberal government that destroyed the national housing program. Symbolically, the Liberals love to talk about housing. However, that has not helped people to build units across the country. As we found out through access to information, the Liberals, by the time they finish their four-year mandate, will have constructed or are in the process of constructing, 14,000 units across the country. That is all.

I pointed out earlier how, after the Second World War, the federal government made an investment in affordable housing. Over three years, it built 300,000 affordable housing units across the length and breadth of Canada to ensure that returning men and women in the service were taken care of. After four years, the Liberals will be able to point to 14,000 units that are either built or are still in the process of being built.

Hundreds of thousands of families are in precarious housing situations. Millions of Canadian families worry about whether they will be able to keep a roof over their head or whether the roof over their head is something they can make sustainable. When we look at the appalling conditions in indigenous communities, the Liberal government has done very little to address that. This shows again the paucity of ideas, broken promises and betrayals coming out of this most recent budget, the last chance budget for the Liberals to get it right.

On all the important issues, the Liberals have simply betrayed their commitments, except for one. They did not make that commitment during the last election campaign, but they have certainly carried it out. They have provided as much support and help to the pampered, privileged and wealthiest Canadians as is absolutely possible. There is no better illustration than the $12 million splurged on Loblaws, one of Canada's most profitable corporations, with almost a billion dollars in profit last year, and run by one of Canada's richest Canadians. In fact, two men now have as much wealth as a third of Canadians. The Liberals, by not applying pharmacare or affordable housing, have taken from the very poor and the middle class and given $12 million to Loblaws. That shows an inability to understand what Canadians are going through.

On October 21, Canadians will have the ability to judge the Canadians on that. Certainly, we are putting forward strong proposals that will help bring the country forward and provide the supports that Canadians need.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the member's comments on household debt. I was going to ask this question last night, before the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola rose to try to adjourn the House and really stall debate on this matter. Maybe the member could help me with a question on debt.

The credit market borrowing fell by 19.5% to $84.6 million in 2008, which is now the lowest level since 2014. Mortgage loan demand has risen by $2.3 billion to $12.3 billion. This looks at how people get into housing. It looks like there is a lot of activity there, which may be a reflection of 825,000 Canadians coming out of poverty and Canadians creating 950,000 jobs under this economy.

Canada now has the highest foreign direct investment in the G7, higher than Germany by almost two times. I wonder whether this growing economy is something the member has some selective vision on or whether he sees some positive things happening in our economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is the stark difference between the Liberals and New Democrat. He could not have said it more appropriately. While the banks are reaping profits, giving a lot of loans to Canadians and reaping record profits, that means everyone is taken care of. With everything I have said today, that we have the highest family debt levels not only in Canadian history, but in the history of any industrialized country, the Liberals just blank out because they are doing okay.

When I say, as we saw with stark clarity just a few weeks ago, that half of Canadian families are $200 away from basic bankruptcy in the course of a month, $200 away from falling even further into debt, if they are lucky to get more loans, the Liberals eyes glaze over. They are saying that the markets, the CEOs and executive bonuses are doing well. Loblaws is going to get CEO bonuses for the $12 million the Liberals took away from students and seniors to splurge on one of the most profitable companies in the country.

That is the stark difference. When the Liberals say that everything is great for them and for the CEOs, we actually look at what is happening to Canadians. For Canadians, it has been four miserable years under the Liberal government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent contribution to this debate.

When I spoke about this bill, I pointed out that the Liberals' solution to helping youth buy a first home was to increase the amount they can withdraw from their RRSP from $25,000 to $35,000.

In my speech, I directly asked my colleagues if young people in their ridings often knocked on their doors to say that the $25,000 from their RRSPs was not enough and that they wanted more to buy that first home.

I will ask the same question that I asked of all the other members: does my colleague know many young people in his riding of New Westminster—Burnaby who have said that the maximum withdrawal from their RRSP was not enough and that they wanted more to buy a house?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Sherbrooke. A few days ago, he was named the youngest finance critic in the history of the House of Commons. Well done. He was chosen as finance critic because of his knowledge and because he works so hard, not only for the people of Sherbrooke, but for all Canadians. I congratulate the member. He fully deserves this position.

He asked a very good question. With regard to RRSPs, young people right now are trying to pay off their student loans, because the previous Conservative government and the current Liberal government have been refusing to help them for years. These governments decided it was more important to take care of CEOs and big corporations, cut taxes across the board, sign treaties with tax havens and create tax loopholes. Now students are paying the price.

Student loan debt has reached astronomical levels and is incredibly hard to pay off. The young people who are working to pay off these student loans are now being forced to take money out of their RRSPs, if they have one, to buy a home. However, they do not have any money to set aside for RRSPs, because they are still paying off the debt imposed by the Liberal government and the previous Conservative government.

The fact that the government's solution is to tell young people to just take money out of their RRSPs shows how out of touch this government is with the everyday reality of Canadians.

I think Canadians will teach this government a lesson on October 21.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's first 17-minute speech and then the three minutes after question period. The member embodies what I believe is the NDP's fantasyland. People listening to the New Democrats would think that if they were born in Canada, they are going to be given a house. If they were born in Canada, good news; they will have anything they can possibly imagine, because the NDP will just give it to them.

The reality of government, as we have seen from the NDP at the provincial level, is far from that fantasyland. I suggest that the member opposite might want to look at some of those NDP governments to get a sense of reality.

The reality inside this House in the last four years is that we have seen many progressive policies, such as a policy that saw Canada's wealthiest 1% get an increase in taxes, something the member voted against. We saw a government that brought in a policy to give a tax break to Canada's middle class, something the NDP voted against.

What about the measures that lifted thousands of children in every region of our country out of poverty? The NDP voted against them. What about the thousands of seniors who were lifted out of poverty? The NDP voted against that. For measure after measure, they are in that fantasyland. I do not quite understand it, when during the last election, Jack Layton himself said that they were going to balance the budget. It just does not add up.

Can my colleague across the way step out of fantasyland for a while and tell us if his new leader believes, as his former leader did, that Canada has to have a balanced budget at all costs?

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

Mr. Speaker, first off, aside from the rant, which I will come back to in a moment, the member pointed out something that is very important to note. The fiscal period returns from ministries of finance over the last 30 years show, collectively, that NDP governments have the best record of managing money and paying down debt.

The NDP takes as its fundamental principle, as did Tommy Douglas, our first leader, actually helping people. We will never deviate from that course of making sure that regular Canadians are taken care of. The Conservatives and Liberals say that they are going to balance the books, but they do not.

Let us get back to the member's point about fantasyland and that money does not grow on trees, except that it does, in Liberal-land, for CEOs. If one is a corporate CEO for Loblaws and wants $12 million, one shows up at a cash for access fundraiser for the Liberal Party, and days later, one gets $12 million. Do seniors get it? No. Do students get it? No. Do hard-working families that are now having to cobble together jobs, because there are now more and more part-time, precarious, temporary jobs, get it? No.

The Liberals will say that there are jobs, but the reality is that families are struggling to make ends meet. Families are struggling under the worst family debt load crisis in the industrialized world. Half of Canadian families are a couple of hundred dollars away from falling into insolvency in any given month. Those are the realities.

However, in Liberal fantasyland, a corporate CEO who runs Kinder Morgan gets $1 billion for free. Liberals up the price. If companies are asking for an amount, they will give them another billion dollars on top of it. If they want tax cuts, they will give them $14 billion in tax cuts in the fall economic statements. In Liberal fantasyland, money does grow on trees, but it only goes to wealthy Canadians.

The NDP believes that regular, hard-working Canadians deserve better, and that is what they are going to get after October 21.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House this afternoon to speak to budget 2019, on behalf of my constituents. I will be sharing my time with the member for Parkdale—High Park.

Budget 2019 continues to build on the Liberal vision for Canada, and this is a vision for a prosperous Canada, where all boats rise together. This, of course, is a precondition for a harmonious democracy where social justice reigns. We know that when there is growing inequality, the middle class, in fact everyone, loses faith in the democratic institutions that are so important to this country. Therefore, it is very important not only for our economy but for our democracy that we strengthen the middle class and that we have a prosperous economy where, as I said, all boats rise together.

Our vision for the middle class is focused on three things, and this has been a recurring theme throughout the three and a half years we have had the great privilege and honour of making decisions in government. Those three things are, first, rebuilding and expanding our infrastructure; second, creating a 21st-century labour force; and third, creating an environmentally sustainable economy that generates jobs and a better quality of life.

Yes, it is important to have jobs, and it is important to have prosperity. However, if we have all of that and our quality of life is degrading because our environment is degrading and the risk to our health is increasing because of a poor environment, people will start asking themselves what they are working for. Obviously, we are working to put our skills and talents to good use, but we are also working to live in a country that has a good quality of life and a strong democracy. We pursue these objectives while at the same time giving a helping hand to those who may need a bit of a hand to participate more fully in the economy.

As a result, this budget includes measures to help seniors who are on GIS actually earn more money before their GIS payments are affected. Of course, in past budgets, we have instituted measures that will help children, who are tomorrow's leaders and workers. We have included measures like the Canada child benefit to ensure that they can grow up strong and healthy and be good citizens and productive members of the economy.

Finally, going back to budget 2018, we have instituted measures to improve the chances of success for women entrepreneurs and to increase the participation rate of women in the labour force. As we know, if we can have a labour force participation rate for women that is equal to that of men, our GDP, by some estimates, could be boosted by 4%, which is not insignificant. As I said, budget 2019 builds on that vision.

I will speak a little about infrastructure.

Infrastructure is about more than just fixing potholes. That said, fixing potholes is not a minor thing, it is important. Not so long ago someone said to me that if everyone took the money they spent fixing their cars and aligning wheels every year because of potholes and put that money into RRSPs, they would all have quite a nest egg on their retirement. Potholes are a real problem.

However, infrastructure is about more than that. It is about building the capacity we need to have a strong 21st-century economy, not only today but in the future. Infrastructure is about building capacity to communicate, not only through high-speed Internet access but also through public transportation to allow people to go from point A to point B for business meetings, for example, meetings that create wealth.

I know that a lot is done on the Internet, but if we ask experts in business or the economy, they tell us that face-to-face meetings are important in terms of generating the relationships and creating the networks that are fundamentally at the root of all wealth creation.

What else would the budget do? It would focus on creating, as I said, a 21st-century labour force. One of the main measures in the budget that would help to do this is the Canada training benefit. As we know, skills gaps hold the economy back. They hold the economy back even more when it is an economy that, because of the accelerating rate of technological change, is moving ahead very quickly. The Canada training benefit would offer a lifetime training credit of up to $5,000, earned at a rate of $250 per year, to those who wished to upgrade their skills for the 21st-century economy.

Attached to that Canada training benefit would be an EI benefit of four weeks, which would allow people to earn some income while they were retraining. It is fine to say that there would be money to pay for courses so people could retrain, but they would be off work, so they would not be able to sustain themselves during that period. Therefore, attached to the Canada training benefit would be an important EI benefit.

As I say, we have also in the past invested money in the Business Development Bank specifically for female entrepreneurs and so on.

On the environment, glaciers are melting, floodwaters are rising and heatwaves endanger the lives of the vulnerable. By the vulnerable, I mean seniors and those who cannot escape urban heat islands. All this is happening while the Conservatives twiddle their thumbs.

What have we done? We have brought in a price on pollution. Experts agree that if we are serious about combatting climate change, the cheapest and most efficient way to do that is through a price on pollution. I quote The Guardian newspaper, which said, not long ago, “Economists widely agree that introducing a carbon price is the single most effective way for countries to reduce their emissions.”

I am very proud that our government has launched a federal backstop, which will apply to the four provinces that have not instituted mechanisms for pricing carbon pollution. Of course, with that backstop comes a remittance to the citizens of those provinces so that at the end of the day, the price on pollution does not impact their family budgets.

Many constituents have said that a price on pollution is great but that we need to do more. In fact, that is what our government is doing. We are bringing in a clean-fuel standard, which will be based on a system of tradable credits. I know that the Conservatives do not like systems of tradable credits, but this clean-fuel standard will incentivize fuel distributors and others to modify their fuel so that they emit less in greenhouse gas emissions. Also, if we look at the experience in California, we see that a clean-fuel standard will encourage, for example, transit companies to shift to electric fleets, so that is very important.

What else are we doing? We are investing in creating a pan-Canadian network of electric charging stations and natural gas and hydrogen refuelling stations. As a matter of fact, I am very pleased and proud that our government announced recently, back in January, a $5-million investment to build 100 fast-charging stations for electric vehicles in the province of Quebec, including, I am pleased to say, two stations in Beaconsfield, in my riding of Lac-Saint-Louis, and two stations in Kirkland, also in my constituency. They will be built by Hydro Quebec, with funding from NRCan's electric vehicle and alternative fuel infrastructure deployment initiative.

What else are we doing to increase demand for zero-emissions vehicles, including plug-in hybrids? This budget would take the very important step of offering up to a $5,000 incentive for those who purchase those vehicles.

I am very proud of the budget. It is making progress in many important areas.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis for his speech.

I noted that he spoke with great pride about the budget and also that he insisted we must fight global warming. I thank him for that, because I believe we do not discuss it enough.

I would like to ask him two questions. First, given that he spoke about plug-in hybrids, I would like him to remind me whether plug-in hybrids such as the Chrysler Pacifica, which is built in Windsor and is the only vehicle of this kind made in Canada, will be eligible. Could he please refresh my memory and provide details about that?

Second, since he is an experienced politician, he knows full well that over the next six months the only thing the parties are going to do is sling mud at one another and quarrel about whether there will be a carbon tax. That will be a pointless fight. I would like to know what he thinks of that.

Take, for example, the resignation of Nicolas Hulot in France. He said that partisan politics do not work. We do not want yellow vests in Canada. There was the United We Roll movement. We must find a consensus and the social licence for what needs to be done.

Does my colleague not agree that it would be good if, before the end of this session, we could come up with a non-partisan, all-party approach to meeting our greenhouse gas reduction targets?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for both of his questions.

In answer to his first question, I would say that the budget has not yet been been approved. However, I assume that the details of the program to provide subsidies of up to $5,000 are currently being worked out. I cannot answer his question because we do not have the details yet. I think that those who make their purchase after the budget comes into effect will be eligible for the subsidy, but we do not have the details yet.

With regard to the non-partisan policy, I completely agree that people need to talk. We talk here in the House because we are a democracy. Even though we may not agree, we must not turn our backs on each other. We need to listen to each other because we are not listening just for ourselves as members. We are also listening on behalf of our constituents, some of whom obviously did not vote for our party. I completely agree that we need to stop throwing mud. That is how we will move forward. I know that, often, it is in committee that we work together to meet important objectives, including those pertaining to the fight against climate change.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Mr. Speaker, one of the issues I am very proud that we have dealt with since being elected as a government is that we have removed 81 long-term boil water advisories across Canada. There are under 60 left. It is not perfect, as the NDP would have it be, but it is very good, and we are going in the right direction.

Budget 2019 has $739 million over five years for boil water removals, with at least $200 million in the next year or year and a half. I know the member has a particular interest and expertise in water. I wonder if he could talk about the importance of this initiative.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an important question and the kind of thing we should be talking about in this House instead of engaging in hyperpartisanship.

That $700 million is added to the $1.8 billion that we committed to over five years. Indeed, many Canadians were wondering why we could not solve this problem. It was a question of funding, of course, but it was also a question of political will. Our government has made a priority of removing these long-term drinking water advisories, and it is because of a focus of attention, in addition to the funds, that we have made progress.

I know that we are extremely committed. The Prime Minister is fundamentally committed to removing all long-term drinking water advisories by March 2021, and the member is right that we are on the right track. We are going to get there and that will be a proud moment for Canada.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, I will continue the excellent commencement to this debate in this 20-minute segment by carrying on from the comments that were made by the member who just spoke.

I am rising in the chamber to speak to Bill C-97, the budget implementation act. This bill continues our government's commitment to put forward a progressive and positive agenda for all Canadians.

This budget has received praise from numerous sources. I have heard about it from the engaged and informed constituents of my riding of Parkdale—High Park, some of whom are here observing the proceedings today. Welcome, Mr. Van Dam.

This legislation will fund important initiatives in relationship to the environment, in relationship to anti-racism, in relationship to support for places of worship, indigenous languages, students, the LGBTQ2 community, infrastructure, health initiatives, social finance and so much more.

During my remarks today I will detail the highlights of this budget that relate to Bill C-97, which will improve the lives of my constituents in Parkdale—Hyde Park as well as Canadians right across the country.

First, it is important to thank the many stakeholders and individual Canadians for their hard work in advocating for various causes and issues raised in the budget by presenting their submissions to the Minister of Finance and the finance committee.

I want to begin my substantive remarks with one of the most important priorities for our country and for the world at large, as was just touched upon in the previous statements. It is the issue of climate change and its impact on our environment.

I agree wholeheartedly with the question that was posed by the NDP heritage critic about this issue needing to be a pan-governmental issue and a nonpartisan issue. Unfortunately, to date it has not been.

As many Canadians know, our government has placed a price on pollution, and it came into full force on April 1 of this year. This is a historic tool that will ensure that pollution is no longer free, and it reflects what I hear from my constituents and people right around this country: that climate change is absolutely real and that we must take action now.

In budget 2019 and through this very bill, we are taking steps in our plan to protect the environment and at the same time grow a clean economy while making life more affordable for Canadians.

This budget implementation legislation would implement a few additional measures, such as our $1-billion plan for investments in energy efficiency, which includes our new home retrofit program to help Canadians lower their electricity and energy bills.

It also includes a new $5,000 subsidy for Canadians investing in zero-emission vehicles. Those are Canadians in my riding of Parkdale—High Park and Canadians in every riding of this country. The bill will also support zero-emission vehicle manufacturing right here in Canada.

This is how we are making meaningful progress on fighting climate change now.

Next is an issue that touches all of us in this country, including residents in Parkdale—High Park in Toronto: the cost of housing.

Everyone deserves an affordable place to call home, but far too often Canadians are being priced out of the housing market. This bill would implement housing investments from budget 2019 that we are making to address housing affordability.

An important initiative is the first-time homebuyers incentive, which will allow first-time homebuyers to reduce their monthly insured mortgage payments by way of a shared equity mortgage from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, CMHC, which would not have to be paid off until the unit is eventually resold. The shared equity mortgage could be up to 10% for a new build or up to 5% for a repurchase.

We are also allowing Canadians to withdraw, without penalty, an additional $10,000 from their RRSPs for the purpose of buying a home.

As well, we are increasing the funds for the rental construction financing initiative, which will help to build thousands of new, well-priced units right around country. That is important, because we have heard constantly that in order to address housing, we have to address the supply.

Bill C-97 would also implement our plan to modernize the Canada homebuyers' plan. This plan is intended to assist Canadians with their down payment and, by extension, the costs of purchasing a home. With this legislation, we are increasing the homebuyers' plan withdrawal limit from $25,000 to $35,000, which will make it more flexible to adapt to changing familial circumstances. That is in reference to the RRSP notion that I raised earlier.

This is on top of our overall $40-billion national housing strategy that now exceeds $50 billion when we combine previous budgetary allocations with the allocations currently being made. This national housing strategy has already been a tremendous success right around the country.

How does it affect my riding? I will explain how. It will affect my riding in two concrete ways.

First, we have five federally subsidized co-ops in my riding of Parkdale—High Park. Every single one of the tenants who has a rent-geared-to-income subsidy provided by the federal government will have that subsidy renewed by virtue of this budget and by virtue of our policies on housing.

Second, we have made a historic announcement of $1.3 billion for the national housing strategy that will come directly to Toronto to help those who are in social housing. It will come to the Toronto Community Housing Corporation. This is the single largest investment in Canadian history that is dedicated directly to municipalities, and 58,000 units will be affected. It will help to renovate, maintain and repair the housing stock, ensuring that the housing stock remains on the market so that people are appropriately housed. That is what a housing strategy does. That is what I am proud to defend here as a government member.

Our infrastructure investments do not stop there. Once again, we are stepping up while governments like the provincial government of Doug Ford are stepping out. In particular, we are investing $2.2 billion into the federal gas tax fund. That gas tax transfer is being doubled this year through this budget so that municipalities can commence much-needed infrastructure repair. This is how we will ensure that infrastructure funding gets exactly where it needs to go, and more importantly, it will go to those who have the ability to actually get the projects done, meaning local and municipal governments and grassroots community organizations.

Why are we taking this step? It is because it was asked for by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Those municipalities have expressed their absolute frustration with governments like the one in Ontario led by Premier Ford, which has stubbornly refused to get moving on much-needed infrastructure repairs purely because of partisan considerations. What we are doing is going directly to those municipalities to address their needs.

This budget implementation bill would also implement Canada's first ever poverty reduction strategy by entrenching an official poverty line and the national advisory council on poverty into law. This is in addition to the incredible news this year that the poverty initiatives implemented by our government are indeed working. Statistics released earlier this year show that 825,000 Canadians have been lifted out of poverty and that we are three years ahead of the targets we set as a government. Thanks to federal initiatives, poverty has fallen 20% since 2015. A hallmark of that initiative is the Canada child benefit and its targeted, means-tested approach.

We are continuing with the other important commitments we have made. We are entrenching pay transparency with this bill. As we well know, currently women in Canada earn approximately 87¢ on the dollar compared to men. This is absolutely unacceptable. Last year's budget introduced pay equity measures, and in order to reduce the wage gap, this year's budget will introduce new pay transparency measures in Canada for federally regulated employers. With this legislation, we will require employers to include new salary data in their annual reports to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour in order to ensure total pay transparency. This is important because it will have an impact on Canadians.

I want to pick up on a question that was asked to the previous member, who spoke about indigenous reconciliation and how it is vested in this budget. It is vested in two critically important ways.

The first is in providing supports of over $300 million for indigenous language maintenance, protection and revitalization. I was very proud to have worked on the development of Bill C-91, which would revitalize, protect and promote indigenous languages during my time as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. We are now coupling that statutory instrument with the financial resources to make it a reality. This is something that has been lauded by indigenous leaders, and rightly so, because it puts money to the commitments we have made to reconcile with indigenous peoples through promoting their language faculties.

Second, it needs to be stated over and over again that the situation of boil water advisories on reserves is deplorable, but we are making active changes to that situation. Thus far, we have lifted 81 boil water advisories around Canada. We are on track to lift all of them by March 2021. To demonstrate our commitment to this goal, we have dedicated an additional $733 million in this year's budget to that very important goal to ensure that no person in Canada, particularly no indigenous person, has to boil their water in order to drink safe water.

Those are the kinds of commitments that people have talked about to me in my riding. Those are the kinds of commitments toward housing, to reconciliation, to poverty elimination, to women, to addressing economic circumstances and job creation that people prioritize. This is a budget that I am proud to stand behind, and I urge every member of this chamber to do exactly the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the government representative speak about indigenous issues, I want to correct that side about the deplorable conditions the majority of indigenous people have to live in, with poor housing and inadequate homes. The government did not even support the amendments to change and strengthen the current legislation regarding the indigenous languages he talks about. There were suggestions made by witnesses to spend up to a billion dollars and take this seriously and the government said no.

The government could not even say yes to ensuring that the commissioner would be indigenous. It said no to that, leaving it open. It has done it in the past and continues to show that anything to do with indigenous people it does not support. It has consistent records on that, from poor housing, poor education, the languages and the list goes on.

The government talks about boil water advisories. Whoop-de-do. It wants to take pride in saying that, but how many indigenous people does it actually know and visit, like the elders, the single moms, the young people, the schools, the health care facilities and even the RCMP, to see how they have to live.

We live in Canada and the indigenous file that the government is happy about is not a good plan. How can it continue to improve? The government can praise the numbers in the budget, but what about the boil drinking water advisories and the language legislation?

Why did the government not support amending the legislation to ensure that the commissioner would be of indigenous heritage?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for her continued advocacy on behalf of her constituents and for indigenous peoples in Canada. It is a contribution to this House and it is an important voice that is being heard.

In the work that was done on Bill C-91, which is the indigenous languages act, first, we took the important step of co-developing that act, meeting with first nations, Métis and Inuit leaders around the country. I participated in those consultations, as did the former minister of heritage, as well as the current Minister of Heritage.

Secondly, we have tabled historic legislation, because we know that the policy of assimilation manifested by the residential school system was one of gross assimilation and effectively cultural genocide, as was described by Beverley McLachlin. We know that when we restore language capacity, we restore people's connections to their culture, their self-esteem and their education, and their economic outcomes improve.

With respect to this specifically, this issue was raised by the TRC calls to action 13, 14 and 15 and were responded to by virtue of tabling this very legislation. The monetary amounts complement the important statutory instrument.

With respect to the committee issues that she is raising, I am not aware of how committee proceedings proceeded, nor what the basis was for making a determination or predetermining who would fulfill the role of the official commissioner.

I will always stand behind our government's commitment to indigenous reconciliation and the fact that it informs every single mandate letter for every single minister in this cabinet, the fact that we have tabled language legislation, child welfare legislation and that we have lifted 81 boil water advisories and are on track to continue to lift all of them by March 2021.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Parkdale—High Park, who is my middle daughter's member of Parliament. She has a young family and she is looking at things around the Canada child benefit and improving cash flow as a young family.

As I mentioned earlier, credit market borrowing fell by 19.5% in 2018. Cash flow is getting improved by policies that we are introducing. Maybe the member could comment on how we are trying to help cash flow for young families.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to represent the member for Guelph's daughter, in terms of having her as a constituent.

What I can say to her, and to many others who live in Parkdale—High Park, is that this is exactly what we are trying to do as a government, broadly. The very first thing we voted on after selecting the Speaker was reducing the taxation burden on middle-income Canadians. That is critical because it puts more money in the pockets of families like his daughter's.

By doing that, what we empower them to do, through things like the middle-class tax cut and the Canada child benefit, which targets people who are raising families, is to take control of their own spending and to spend on what is important for their own families, whether that is purchasing their first home or putting their kids in a new course.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to be sharing my time today with my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent. For those who are watching at home and who may be quickly bored by my speech, if they hang in there for 10 minutes, they will hear a much better speech after by my colleague.

I am very pleased to join the debate today on the Liberal budget. The Liberals have presented what I call a Dr. Strangelove budget or, in this case, “How I stopped worrying and learned to love the debt”. That is what the government wants Canadians to believe: “Do not worry, we can continue to spend forever. Do not worry, the economy will grow forever. No recession will ever happen again. Do not worry, we can rack up debt to the very end of time and it will not be a problem. Do not worry about about interest payments. Do not worry about the fact that our interest payments are growing from this fiscal year of $26 billion and to $33.2 billion per year in just a four-year period.”

That is $149 billion that we are going to be paying, transferred out of the pockets of taxpayers to rich bondholders on Bay Street, just over a five-year period. It will be $149 billion. In the fourth year, 2023, it is going to be $33.2 billion. Now, that is more than we spend per year in EI payments. That is more than we pay out in the child benefit program. That is more than we pay out for national defence.

Here we are with the Liberal priority of paying off rich Bay Street bankers and bondholders instead of defence, instead of families and instead of those on EI. To put it in perspective, with that money, the Liberals could pay for 2,750 refrigeration units for the Weston family. Let us think about that. The Liberals could also provide their own billionaire island for every single cabinet minister, so they could go to their island and not worry about violating the ethics laws. Liberal ministers could go to their own billionaire island and not worry about being invited by a paid lobbyist.

“Do not worry” is what the Liberals are saying. Do not worry about the declining productivity rate that Canadians are suffering through. Do not worry about disappearing foreign investment.

That is one thing I do worry about, though. We see foreign investment fleeing Canada. We see the oil industry devastated, $100 billion fleeing to the States. We see the Liberals giving Kinder Morgan $4.5 billion to take out of the country and invest in pipelines in the States. Who do we see interested in investing in Canada, which the Liberals are only too happy to see? It is Huawei. We see Anbang investing in Canada, thanks to the Liberal government. We see the Chinese Communist government-controlled CCCC construction firm trying to buy out local Canadian infrastructure companies. The Liberals are all willing to invest in Canada but not regular people.

“Do not worry,” say the Liberals. Do not worry about the fact that the debt is going to rise to over three-quarters of a billion dollars over the next five years. That is not including Crown corporations. When we throw in the Crown corporations, it is well over a trillion dollars of debt that Canadians are going to be carrying. This money has to be worrying, but “Do not worry. Stop worrying. Learn to love it,” is what the Liberals are saying.

Canadians are worried. We sent out a request to my constituents, asking for their response, asking what they think of the debt and if they feel they are further ahead than when the Liberals took over. This is what they are saying. This is not the made-up information that is in the budget, such as “Billy went to buy an electric vehicle and got a handout from the government.” These are real Canadians, real people living in Edmonton West, and this what they are saying.

Elmer wrote in and said, “It's worse off and it's not improving. They are so concerned about the ramifications of Oshawa's GM plant closing. What about Alberta? We've had no oil revenue and, therefore, severe unemployment problems for over three years, but I have not seen any concern about Alberta's unemployment situation.”

We used to have four Liberal members of Parliament. We have not had any of them stand up, supporting Alberta. We had four MPs in Liberal Party from Alberta, which are now down to three because of a scandal. We used to have two in the cabinet and now we are down to one, again, because of a scandal.

The member for Calgary Centre stood up and publicly stated that he would pound his fist on the desk at the cabinet table to make sure pipelines were built. What has happened? Absolute crickets from the member, he has done nothing.

The natural resources minister is based in Edmonton in the riding of Edmonton Mill Woods. What has he done for Alberta? Absolutely nothing.

In the budget, $27 million are provided for the diversification of the western economy and there are $100 million for oil and gas support. What did the Liberals put aside for subsidies so wealthy people could buy electric vehicles? Almost half a billion dollars. Even though the Minister of Natural Resources is from Edmonton Mill Woods in Alberta, only $27 million have been provided for diversification.

What about the member for Edmonton Centre? I asked him for his thoughts on the no new pipeline bill, Bill C-69. I asked him about the offshore tanker ban that did not ban tankers, just Alberta oil. I also asked him about all of the Liberals' other punitive policies against Alberta. He stood and said that he was proud of them. He was proud to push through Bill C-69, which ensures we will not see a single new energy project ever again in Alberta. He was proud that our oil was banned on the west coast, while we happily bring in oil from Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. This is shameful.

I received a letter from a lady named Holly, who was asked if she was better off. She said, “Seriously? Can anyone be better off? We lost our small business of 20 years. We paid our taxes and paid our staff. The bank took our house, which guaranteed our small business loan, which we hadn't missed a payment on. All of our employees, including four family members, are all out of work. We are jobless and homeless, and the government just keeps on destroying the economy.”

Let us remember back to a couple of years ago when the Prime Minister was in Calgary and confronting these things. His comment was, “Just hang in there.” People like Holly cannot just hang in there. The government's policies are destroying the livelihoods and hope of people living in Alberta.

Brian writes, “Worse off—I live in subsidized housing in Edmonton—the cost of living has gone up a great deal but not our income. We all got a raise from the Alberta Government, not even $2. 30% of that goes to my apartment cost, so what did I get? We got a carbon tax—30% of that went to our apartment cost. Anything we get, 30% goes to the cost of our apartment.”

The Government members stand again and again, as they did just recently, to note the Liberals' $40-billion national housing program. Apparently, it is $50 billion now. The Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy, or IFSD, which is headed by former parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page, has looked for this money. It writes that the Liberals', “NHS looks like” nothing except a “glossy document that accompanied its announcement....unfortunately, for now, the NHS is virtually nowhere to be seen in the federal fiscal framework.”

With respect to the Liberals' $40 billion, the Prime Minister and the parliamentary secretary responsible for this both stood to say that the Liberals housed one million people. They actually told people this. That was until the Toronto Star, the prophet of North America, said this was not true and that the number was actually 13,000. The Liberals' own department results showed it was 13,000 and the Liberals claimed it was one million. However, they say, as they just did now, this is worth $50 billion.

The IFSD said that it could only find $1.3 billion budgeted in the first five years and $5.1 billion budgeted over 10 years.

As a last comment, I would like to note comments by a man named Helmut. He said, “Worse than a year ago. As a senior on income security, the provision is not keeping pace with high rise in expenses....”

This is what we are hearing from Canadians when we talk to them. They are barely treading water. They are not getting ahead, as generations have before them. Every time they take a step forward, the government drags them back two steps, whether it is done with the carbon tax, taking away other tax credits or pushing up debt, which pushes up interest rates. Canadians are not getting ahead.

On Tuesday, when Jason Kenney becomes premier of Alberta, we will take our first steps toward fixing the problems in Alberta. On October 21, we will take the next step, when we turf the government and bring back a Conservative government.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I must thank the member for not moving adjournment. I know that yesterday the Conservatives moved adjournment because they did not want to debate and wanted to maybe go home a little early. Therefore, I am grateful the member did not move adjournment today.

Having said that, the member talked quite negatively about Alberta. I would like to say to the people of Alberta and all the Prairies that I am a member of Parliament from the Prairies and this government has delivered in many different ways. It has put money into the pockets of Canadians throughout. In particular, when I think of western Canada and our Prairies, I think of things such as the Canada child benefit, the GIS increase and infrastructure.

In fact, in this last budget, I believe one of the wonderful initiatives is that a portion of the gas tax is going directly to the municipalities. Therefore, a city like Winnipeg, for example, is going to be spending roughly another $37 million as a direct result of this government. That is all with respect to building or reconstructing roads and things of that nature. Infrastructure is something that is very important to this government. It has been virtually from day one.

My question to my colleague and friend across the way is this. Does he not recognize that, over and above the many positive, progressive, social benefits that individuals are receiving, there is also, within the budget, some very positive things that municipalities will be able to take advantage of to build healthier infrastructure throughout our prairie provinces, and that is a really good thing?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments and his humour. It is always funny watching Liberals stand up and try to explain all the great things they have done for western Canada, such as Bill C-69, the no new pipelines bill, and Bill C-48. It is amazing that we had four, now down to three, Liberal MPs from Alberta betray the people of Alberta by supporting the Liberal plan to destroy our energy industry.

As to the member's comment about infrastructure, again I have to laugh at this. The independent-controlled Senate, filled with Liberal senators and appointees, came out with a report that said there is no metric for success for the infrastructure spending by the government apart from money spent. Therefore, are we spending money so that people can get to work faster, improve productivity, which we are not, or improve the environment? No, the Liberal plan is not any of those. Its metric of success is spending.

We saw the spending for Alberta. The Prime Minister stood up and talked about it the other day. He bragged about putting ashtrays at bus stops in Alberta. We have 100,000 unemployed energy workers and the government is bragging about upgrading a bus stop with its infrastructure money. The current government has failed Alberta and this is another perfect example of it.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we saw what a Conservative budget looks like, essentially, with the tabling of the Doug Ford budget. We saw that, with their obsessive fixation on the debt and deficit, they are cutting health care in Ontario to less than the rate of inflation. We know that health care costs are growing at a rate of a little over 5% and the Doug Ford Conservatives have capped it at 1.6%, which means more patients in hallways and Ontarians getting sicker and not having the health care system they need.

I noticed the Liberal budget is cutting the health care federal budget from $3.5 billion to $2.5 billion. The Liberals are taking a billion dollars out of the federal health care system.

I know my hon. colleague's party is as equally concerned about the debt and deficit as the Doug Ford Conservatives are. Therefore, does he agree with the Liberal government's budget that will take a billion dollars out of the federal budget for health care? Is that something that, were he to form government, he would countenance and agree with?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague meant to say “when” we form government, but this is the issue. If we are spending $33 billion in interest four years from now, that is money that cannot be spent on health care. That is money that cannot be spent supporting families and children.

The Conservatives do not go on about the debt because we like to see black ink in the ledger. It is because debt and interest payments have victims. Those victims are average Canadians who need to get ahead, but are being held back with big, onerous interest payments. That is money being taken out of their pockets and put into the pockets of wealthy bankers instead of services in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak at second reading of the bill to implement budget 2019, which was presented by the Minister of Finance three weeks ago already.

I first want to thank my colleague from Edmonton West. It is a real privilege and honour to sit with him on the Standing Committee on Government Operations. Each and every time I sit with him at committee, I learn so much, as all Canadians learned so much a week ago, when the hon. member for Edmonton West gave the information to all Canadians, in an interview with the National Post, that the government cannot count correctly. This is absolutely crazy. We are talking about billions of dollars in a budget, and it cannot put the right numbers in the right places. As the member for Carleton said in a tweet, Canada is blessed to have the member for Edmonton West, who is doing such great work at committee, in the House, in his riding and for Canada.

This fourth budget presented by the Minister of Finance is the last budget before Canadians choose the next government six months from now.

Let me remind everyone how the Canadian economy was doing when the people decided to put in power the governing party, the Liberal Party of Canada. When the Liberals came to power at the end of 2015, the previous government had left a surplus of $2.9 billion.

The previous government left Canada in an enviable economic position, as we had the best debt-to-GDP ratio among the G7 nations. We were the first country to recover from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression of the 1920s. We were the best country of all G7 nations.

We, the Conservatives, left the house in order, with a budget surplus, the best debt-to-GDP ratio and a thriving economy that was expanding nicely around the world.

What did the Liberals do with that wonderful gift from the previous government?

Let us not forget that, during the last election campaign, the Liberals pledged in all sincerity to run small deficits and balance the budget in 2019. I will quote from their platform because it bears repeating again and again. If I have asked once, I have asked a hundred times since being elected, but they keep refusing to let me table their very own campaign platform. They can deny the truth all they want, but we will not hide it from Canadians.

In 2015, they got elected because they said, and I quote:

With the Liberal plan, the federal government will have a modest short-term deficit of less than $10 billion [in each of the next three years]...[which] will return Canada to a balanced budget in 2019/20.

Well, here we are in 2019. Those were the promises that got the Liberal Party elected. Canadians believed those promises when they voted and gave the Liberals a majority.

What happened? First, the Liberal Party promised to run three modest deficits of less than $10 billion, but in reality they ran three huge deficits that were nearly twice as big as projected: $18 billion in the first year; $19 billion in the second year; $18 billion in the third year; and $19.8 billion this year. The Liberals promised three modest and temporary deficits, but they gave us three huge deficits that are here to stay. Such is the reality of the Liberal government and the administration of the Minister of Finance.

Three years later we are looking at 2019-20, or the budget that was tabled three weeks ago. The Liberals swore that 2019-20 would be the year of zero deficit. In one of the English debates during the last election campaign, the Prime Minister looked Canadians in the eye and gave them his word, solid as a rock, that they could expect the budget to be balanced in 2019-20.

Unfortunately, those dear Canadians were duped by the current Prime Minister. Not only will 2019 not be a zero-deficit year, but it is the year in which the government will run its largest deficit to date, at nearly $20 billion. It is totally unacceptable.

The Liberals abandoned their commitments. They threw away their election promises. They scrapped their election platform. They are telling us to forget the zero-deficit year. This being an election year means that it is time to let loose. They are making promises left and right, but we all know how those turn out.

That is the problem with deficits. Running a deficit is like borrowing on our children's, grandchildren's and great-grandchildren's line of credit because the government is not able to properly manage the country.

A father, mother or head of a household cannot live off of a line of credit. A family cannot keep maxing out credit cards. At the end of the day, you have to pay. That is what is unfortunate about the current government's administration. They always claim to care about families, about children and about children's futures. I understand why it claims to be a family-oriented government. It passes the bill on to children and grandchildren who are not yet born but will be stuck paying for this government's mismanagement.

As we can see, this is an unprecedented economic theory if ever there was one. Its one and only adherent is the Prime Minister. Four years ago, he said that the budget would balance itself. When you leave public finance up to the kids in short pants, you end up with massive deficits.

I am still waiting for experts from the London School of Economics and Political Science, Harvard or anywhere else in the world to say that our current Prime Minister was right when he came up with the far-fetched, preposterous and absurd theory that budgets balance themselves. This is what happens.

I would also remind members that the Liberals promised to balance the budget. It was written in black and white in their election platform. On page 76, it states that they plan to invest in infrastructure to stimulate the economy.

That is not at all what they did. They announced their infrastructure program with great fanfare, saying it was the largest investment in infrastructure in the history of Canada. Three and a half years later, they have spent only 10% of what they promised to spend. Everyone expected there to be a deficit, a debt, because investments were made in infrastructure. That is just logical. I do not necessarily always agree with their logic. The condition is a balanced budget. Yes, that is logical, but they did not keep their word. It is like borrowing money to pay for your groceries. Borrowing money to buy a car or a house, now that makes sense, but not to pay for your groceries.

That is why this is the budget of broken promises. This will be the year of the Liberal carbon tax. Canadians must expect to pay more. The Liberal carbon tax will not cut greenhouse gas emissions, but will take money out of Canadian workers' pockets.

When we asked for access to information to determine if the government had done studies on the impact this could have on families, we received documents outlining the impact, but they were redacted. There was nothing in them. They wanted to hide pertinent information from Canadians.

Second, according to some documents, the government's target could increase not just up to $50 per tonne, but up to $300 per tonne, or six times greater than what Canadians were told. We have to be careful about that.

Some people will say that the tax is a way of putting a price on pollution and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. That is their argument, but it does not work. I am not just making up an example here. I am talking about Quebec, which has had what is known as a carbon exchange in place for over three years. It is a carbon market that acts as a tax on pollution. It was approved by the Quebec National Assembly. It has been in place for three years. What was the actual impact of this carbon exchange, this measure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, after two years? There was no impact.

That is why anyone who would have Canadians believe that the Liberal carbon tax will reduce greenhouse gas emissions is misleading them, and there is evidence to prove it. It is unfortunate for those who believe the contrary, but facts are facts, as the Quebec carbon exchange has shown. I have here a document that I would be happy to table with the consent of the House. It shows that the Liberal carbon exchange program did not reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

This is the budget of broken promises. It is a budget that proves the Liberals have been pulling the wool over Canadians' eyes for the past three years. In six months, Canadians will get a chance to pass harsh, well-deserved judgment on those who got elected by abusing their trust and who have unfortunately saddled Canadians with debt for generations to come.

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

Mr. Speaker, the first thing I want to point out is that the economic legacy of Stephen Harper's government was to leave Canada in a recession in 2015. What will the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent's approach to taxation look like? If I may cut through his histrionics, it sounds like he is sincerely upset about the fact that we eliminated the non-refundable tax credit for public transit. That seems to be his plan for fighting climate change and poverty.

Since he has brought up this tax credit so many times over the past three years, let us see how much his constituents benefited from it. It amounted to a non-refundable tax credit of $13.25 a month for an RTC pass, which the taxpayer would get at the end of the year, after filing a tax return and receiving a notice of assessment. That is the measure my colleague is advocating. He has given us so much grief about our decision to eliminate this tax credit of $13.25 a month, which was granted at the end of the year, for those paying taxes, since it was non-refundable.

Meanwhile, he voted against the Canada child benefit, which gives an average of $5,500 annually, tax free, to 12,500 families in his riding. Let me repeat that. It gives 12,500 families $5,500 every year, tax free. That means 23,000 children in his riding are better off, for a total of $69 million.

Is my colleague going to cancel that? Is he telling Canadians he would like to cancel the Canada child benefit and bring back his public transit tax credit worth $13 a month, which is only collected at the end of the year when they do their tax returns? If he wants to make that the key message of his election campaign, I say “bring it on”.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out a few contradictions in the member for Louis-Hébert's statements.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that what they inherited was a $2.9 billion surplus. That is a fact. Another fact is that we were the first G7 country to emerge from the worst recession since the 1920s, and we did it with flair. We were the best in the G7. When we left power, Canada was in an enviable position and a period of economic prosperity was forecast for 2016, 2017 and 2018. Those people were lucky, but sadly, they threw that golden opportunity away in favour of heaping debt on our children and grandchildren.

The member also said that we did nothing for the environment. I would like to remind him that greenhouse gas emissions declined by 2.2% on our watch. We invested over $1.5 billion in creating the ecotrust program, which Greenpeace and Steven Guilbeault applauded. Guilbeault might even end up being the member for Louis-Hébert's colleague. I look forward to tabling the documents later.

One thing I never saw coming was that the government abolished the tax credit that our government had created for all Canadians who take the bus. It was unacceptable for the government to punish these people like that. That is why their attitude is so disappointing. If the member wants to talk about public transit, let us talk about public transit. The government is bickering with its provincial partners, which is the worst thing you can do. Furthermore, the member for Louis-Hébert recently insulted his provincial counterpart from Louis-Hébert, the Deputy Premier of Quebec, saying that she was not telling Canadians the truth. The member for Louis-Hébert should familiarize himself with his files.

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

Mr. Speaker, to pick up on what my colleague from Louis-Hébert was saying, I will ask a question that the Conservatives have yet to answer. Rightly or wrongly, they get worked up about budgetary deficits every chance they get. What they fail to talk about is how they propose to manage public finances and what their financial framework will be in the upcoming election campaign.

Will it be a balanced framework? If so, how do they plan to balance the budget? Will they, like us, have the courage to collect revenues where they are available in order to fund public services? If not, will the hon. member take the same approach as every other Conservative in this country and make budget cuts or adopt Conservative austerity measures? Which of these options will he campaign on in the upcoming election if he wants to return to a balanced budget?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this relevant question from the member for Sherbrooke. I want to commend him and his party for having the courage, honour, dignity and sense of responsibility in 2015 to run on a platform that proposed a balanced budget and no deficits.

That is what drew the ire of the Liberals. They were told that they had to be progressive; the lefties had spoken. Unfortunately, not only did the Liberals not keep their word, but they also sunk our country into massive amounts of debt without having any idea of how to balance the budget.

The member asked how we will return to a balanced budget. The election is in six months, and in the coming months we will be presenting a financial plan for meeting our objectives.

I urge my colleague and all others to pay attention when they make threats to scare everyone. Some people thought that yesterday would be the end of the world in Ontario, but even Chantal Hébert acknowledged that the budget was perfectly fine.

Bill C-97—Time Allocation

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

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period.

I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Sunny ways have turned into cloudy days. The government, led by a Prime Minister who promised no omnibus bills and to never shut down debate, is now shutting down debate on a omnibus bill.

Of course, this bill is technically called the budget, but it reaches into areas that have nothing to do with budget policy—reaching, for example, into the laws pertaining to refugees.

Let us remember that in last year's budget bill, the finance minister snuck in an amendment to the Criminal Code to allow large corporate criminals to avoid trial by signing deferred prosecution agreements whereby they could pay a small fine, say they were sorry and promise never to do it again, without facing the wrath of prosecution that would confront any other Canadian charged with a crime. The finance minister said nothing about deferred prosecution agreements in the budget speech leading up to that bill. He skipped over that small detail. I guess we would have to read the fine print.

That has become the nature of the government, a government that is overwhelmed with hypocrisy. The Prime Minister claimed that he would never engage in omnibus bills and that he would always allow open debate, and now he is doing precisely the opposite.

This bill, though, implements a disastrous budget, a cover-up budget wherein $41 billion of brand new cash spending is designed to paper over the SNC-Lavalin scandal and make Canadians forget about the Prime Minister's interference in a criminal prosecution by spraying billions of dollars of Canadians' own money at them right before an election.

This finance minister, who is responsible for this massive engorgement of public funds, should answer for his actions. He broke his word and the Prime Minister's word that they would balance the budget this year—or, more accurately, that the budget would balance itself. He has increased the cost of government by 25% in three short years, and on top of that, middle-class Canadians are paying, on average, $800 more per household.

With all of these broken promises, can the finance minister tell us why Canadians should believe anything he or his Prime Minister have to say?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before going to the finance minister, I want to remind hon. members that there a lot of people who want to ask questions. The length of the question also dictates the length of the answer, so I do not want them to be too long. Try to be as concise as possible, both on the question and the answer.

The hon. finance minister.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I understand then that I have roughly 15 minutes to speak at this time, so I would be able to talk about how well middle-class Canadians are doing.

Budget 2019 was really a continuation of our approach to ensure not only that our economy is doing well, but that middle-class Canadians can see a brighter future. What we have done from day one is consider how Canadians can face up to the challenges that the current economy is presenting and that the future economy will present.

We started with things like a reduction in middle-class taxes and the increase in the Canada child benefit, measures that made an important difference for families and have led to a typical middle-class family in 2019 having $2,000 more in their pockets than in 2015. It is important when we look at the situation that we consider all elements, and the Canada child benefit was critically important not only for families but also in helping our economy to do better.

We have done a number of other measures over the last few years, but budget 2019 was particularly important for what we want to do to make sure that people are resilient in the face of economic challenges in the future.

I would point the House to the Canada training benefit, which we know will make a really important difference for Canadians as they look to making sure they have the skills necessary for the economy of today and tomorrow. It would allow people to take four weeks off every four years and have a training credit so they can find the kind of training they need. It would enable them to have the kind of support along the way that will allow them to continue to support their families. This will be critically important for people today and for young people as they keep their skills up over the years to come.

Budget 2019 will be a continuation in our effort to ensure that middle-class Canadians are successful in the face of the challenging economic world that we live in.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a very sad day for Parliament. Four years ago the Liberals promised that they would end the abuse of Parliament that was occurring through excessive closure motions. They promised not to bring in omnibus legislation and they promised to welcome refugees into this country. Today, with the 66th closure motion that the government has put forward and that the Liberals are ramming through the House to avoid scrutiny of an omnibus budget bill, we are seeing that all of the promises and commitments they made in 2015 are simply being cast aside.

A few weeks ago, during the break, representatives of some of the major human rights organizations in Canada—Amnesty International, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, the Canadian Council for Refugees, and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association—wrote to ask the Prime Minister not to implement the provisions in this omnibus legislation that slam the door shut to refugees coming into Canada. Is that not the real reason Liberals are imposing closure yet again today?

Canadians are finding out about the refugee provisions. They are seeing white supremacists standing up with the government and saying “Wonderful. This is a great day.” However, for Canadians, this is a sad day. Is this not the kind of behaviour that the Liberals promised to change in 2015? They should be ashamed of themselves.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to address the multitude of points presented by the hon. member.

We made a commitment when we came into office that each and every measure that was in our budget bill would be reflected in the budget itself. That is a commitment we continue to uphold.

We have put forward a budget. Of course, the budget implementation act reflects those things that we put in our budget. I believe it is important that we move the bill to committee so that the budget can be examined there. I am looking forward to being with the finance committee tomorrow for an hour and a half to discuss the budget and answer the committee's questions.

I will note that our approach to the important issue of immigration continues to be that of recognizing Canada as a welcoming country, a country where we know that immigration has been and will continue to be a positive influence for our country.

Importantly, as a government, we have been looking at how we can measurably increase immigration each and every year we are in office. That is something we are quite proud of. We do that not only by looking at economic and family reunification issues with respect to people coming to Canada, but also by allowing refugees to come to our country. In this budget we have put in place measures to ensure we have the capacity to meet the administrative requirements needed for people who are seeking asylum in our country and deal with these claims in an expedited, compassionate and humane way. We are looking forward to the passage of this budget implementation act so that we can continue to have a country that is a beacon of hope with respect to immigration for the world at large.

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

Mr. Speaker, many of my constituents are very concerned about the canola crisis we are in the middle of and the impact it has on farmers. Meanwhile, in the context of the government's budget proposals, it is giving more money to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which is a vehicle of Chinese foreign policy. It is controlled from Beijing. It is being used to build infrastructure in Asia to advance China's interests through the belt and road initiative, such as building pipelines in Azerbaijan.

People in my constituency are wondering why their tax dollars are being used to fund the advancement of China's regional ambitions while Canadian farmers are suffering because of a totally inappropriate and baseless trade action by China. We oppose participation in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank in general, but at the very least, would the minister agree that the government should stop writing these big cheques to advance the Chinese government's foreign policy until we at least see movement on the canola issue?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for the question around the incredibly challenging situation that our canola farmers are facing right now today with what we see as inappropriate trade actions from China. We recognize this challenge is presenting very critical issues, especially as people look for markets for their canola.

This is an issue that we see in multiple ways as being something we can deal with. We are looking carefully at how we can help to expand markets for canola, which is critically important. We are also looking at how we can support the canola farmers in this time of crisis.

In my new role as the minister for intergovernmental affairs, I can tell members that we will be talking to the premiers who are dealing with this issue in the provinces to make sure we collaborate on ways we can support those farmers. As we do that, we will also be thinking about how we can continue to be an active force for an open, rules-based trading system in our world, which we see as critically important for the long run.

One of the ways we do that is by supporting international development banks around the world. Those IDBs can have an important role in enabling Canada to have a position in the world. It is for that reason that the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank is, as a regional development bank, important in helping many less-developed countries in that part of the world to be successful. Of course, as they become successful, they will have a greater demand for the kinds of products that Canada can produce. It is an important part of an overall impact that we are making in the world.

The situation is multi-faceted. These problems are not simple; they require thinking about both the current situation and the future situation, so we will definitely be thinking about how we can support the canola farmers and also continue to hold a strong place in the world in support of international development banks.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not pretend that I have any right to give lessons to our Minister of Finance, but I want to remind him that this is a discussion about time allocation, not about the substance. This is a question of taking a bill that is 355 pages long and rushing it through the House.

Being an omnibus budget bill, this legislation includes many provisions, some of which have been referenced here. I will join my NDP colleagues in saying that it is deeply offensive to have refugee rights limited within an omnibus budget bill.

The reality is that this is a debate on introducing time allocation, in the worst of all instances, on a critically important piece of legislation that is voluminous. If there is any respect for this place, as Parliament, discussing and debating and hearing alternate views, one does not put time allocation on a bill of over 355 pages that includes dozens of different provisions.

I will also remind the Minister of Finance that if we respected immigration and refugee rights, this legislation would be stand-alone legislation so that it would go before the committee on immigration. It would not be stuffed into a budget bill and pushed through the House on time allocation.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her question, which, as she rightly points out, is focused on the issue of the day. I will, as I think is respectful to the House, answer questions that are put to me with the substance of an answer related to the substance of the question.

In the case of the member's question, we see that it is important for us to move forward. We recognize that getting the bill to committee will allow for a deeper analysis of many of the important issues we are bringing forward to make a real difference for Canadians.

I am also looking forward to being in front of committee tomorrow for 90 minutes to have that discussion and to answer questions that are put to me.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, members stand one after another and say that it is wrong to limit debate and have closure on debate on this bill, but it is the official opposition that earlier moved a motion to adjourn debate on the budget implementation act.

I wonder if the minister could speak to that and to how important it is to get this done, get it to committee, get recommendations back and get this over with for the people of Canada.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for pointing out the reality of some of the challenges we face in moving legislation through the House. When the opposition tries to adjourn debate on something that is quite important, it obviously presents a challenge. It actually uses up time that could be better used talking about the kinds of measures we have in our budget, measures that are going to make a difference for Canadians.

When we use up our time on things that are repetitive, as has happened in the House in the not so recent past, we take up the time for things that we know can make an important difference for the long-term health of our country and the long-term health of our economy for Canadians.

We are left with a situation where we are moving to committee so that we can get a deeper look at some of the critical issues in the budget. These are issues that we are confident it is important to move forward on so that we can continue the positive economic results we have had over the last three and a half years, recognizing that while we have the lowest level of unemployment in more than a generation, we need also to be thinking about tomorrow. That is what our budget would do this year. We are thinking not only about how we continue with what we have been able to achieve over the last few years but about how we make sure that we lay the groundwork for continuing success for Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, just a few minutes ago, the finance minister mentioned the commitment to the budget bill containing only issues that are pertinent to the budget. Other members today have said that there are issues in the bill that should be in separate bills.

We have seen this in the past with the issues around the SNC-Lavalin case. There were instruments in the 2017 budget that caused all the problems the Liberal government is facing, but they were hidden in that massive omnibus budget bill that did not get time for proper debate in the House. Some of the issues were identified, but they were not debated in the House.

Here we are again with the government calling time allocation on another omnibus budget bill. The minister says that the government committed to it containing no issues but budget issues. Can the minister assure the House that there are no other issues in the bill that are not simply budget issues, because other members here this morning have said that there are?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we came into office recognizing that the previous government had, on numerous occasions, actually introduced into the budget implementation act things that were not directly related in any way, shape or form to what was in its budget. We made a commitment to moving forward in having the issues in our budget implementation act be related to the budget. That is a commitment we continue to respect.

What one will find in looking at the budget implementation act is that all the measures in the budget implementation act this year, as was the case last year, as was the case the year before and the year before, are in the budget. That is the approach we are going to continue to take by respecting this House in presenting a budget and putting through a budget implementation act that is aligned with that budget totally.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw attention back to the question posed by my colleague from Kitchener. He was absolutely right to bring up SNC-Lavalin.

This kind of procedure will rush the bill through the House of Commons. However, the government has presented a budget and an omnibus bill that includes everything but the kitchen sink. When the government tries to pass measures without anyone knowing, it thinks it knows better than everyone, that it knows all the answers. The government came up with a haphazard solution to the SNC-Lavalin problem. The Liberals figured that they would tinker with the legislation a little and it would work. It did not work considering the mess that you and those who live in Quebec are now dealing with.

The government is coming up with solutions in secret and is not presenting them to the 338 members of the House in order to take advantage of their expertise in finding solutions.

I would like to know whether the Minister of Finance will answer my colleague from Kitchener.

Can the government assure us that there will not be any more mistakes, aberrations, serious errors and serious consequences for all Canadians and for you as a government like we saw with the improvised line regarding SNC-Lavalin?

The government is irresponsibly improvising because it thinks it knows everything.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I would like to remind hon. members that they must address their questions to the Speaker and not directly to the ministers or members across the aisle.

The hon. Minister of Finance.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we know that budget implementation bills are very important.

We promised to include every measure mentioned in the budget in its implementation bill. We made that promise four years ago. Every year the budget implementation bill contains the measures announced in the budget. That is our approach.

That is the approach we have been taking for the past four years in order to improve our economy and make things better for Canadians. The results are very impressive. Our current economic situation is much better than it was in 2015. We have the lowest unemployment rate in 40 years. This means that Canadians are better off.

This year's budget contains measures that will help improve things for the future so as to ensure that our economic situation remains strong for Canadians.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the finance minister to perhaps elaborate on the importance of getting the budget to committee because of the measures in it, such as the aid for seniors that is going to go so far in helping seniors in Canada.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I see it as important to make sure that we move forward in getting the measures in the budget approved so that Canadians can be in a better situation. The member, I think, appropriately pointed out the measures for seniors that are included in our budget. I would like to identify a couple of measures that would make a really important difference.

First of all, we would put in place an approach to ensure that people would automatically get their Canada pension plan amount when they retired. Importantly, we found out that there were about 40,000 Canadian seniors who should be getting their Canada pension plan amount who do not currently get it. Therefore, we would put in place a measure to actually ensure that those people would get their Canada pension plan amount, helping 40,000 seniors.

Second, for all seniors who need a guaranteed income supplement, we would also put in place a measure that would allow them, if they chose to, to continue to work and have less of a clawback of their guaranteed income supplement amount, meaning that they would be able to keep more money in their pockets and have a more dignified retirement.

These are two measures that would be important for seniors. However, what I want colleagues to know is that putting forth this budget means that we would be able to help Canadians across the country, old and young, have a better situation in the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, no one wins when the government has to limit debate. Four years ago, the Liberal government was elected on the promise that it would not use legislative tricks to avoid scrutiny. This promise can be seen in black and white on page 30 of their election platform.

Last year the Liberals did just that by inserting an extremely important clause about deferred prosecution agreements with corporations into its omnibus budget implementation bill. We have seen the implications of this clause in the Liberal SNC-Lavalin scandal. Why? Because legislation and budget measures cannot evade parliamentary scrutiny.

I also want to remind members that, four years ago, the Liberals were elected on the promise that they would run three small deficits and then would balance the budget in 2019. In reality, they ran three big deficits and will have a $19.8 billion deficit in what was supposed to be a zero-deficit year.

I have a very simple question for the Minister of Finance. Why is he still shirking his election promises?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, it is a bit odd to hear the Conservatives say that it is important to continue the debate when they were the ones who tried to adjourn it. It is hard to understand, but that is their approach.

Our approach is clear. We want a budget that will improve life for Canadians. That is why we presented a budget this year that will not only improve the economy, but will also give Canadians the opportunity to get more training to adapt to the changing economy. It is very important.

We have already done many things that helped Canadians get ahead. Now, with budget 2019, we are trying to give our country a better future. That is very important. That is why we want to work with the committee to consider our measures and continue to have a healthy economy.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this approach of having an omnibus budget bill is not a one-off; this has happened before. The last time around, the budget bill was about 500 pages long, and this time it is about 400 pages long. The government, of course, adopts the same approach as the Harper government, which is to put bills that should have been stand-alone bills into the budget bill for the explicit purpose of hiding them from Canadians. It flies in the face of democracy. We parliamentarians cannot have the ability to fully debate the matter and study the matter with expert witnesses.

In this budget bill, the government is trying to ram through significant changes to the refugee determination process. The finance committee was not even going to refer the matter to the immigration committee. Yesterday I had to fight tooth and nail to get that done. Even that is limited in terms of the scope and our ability to do that work because of the time restrictions and the limited number of meetings we would have on this bill.

This bill is being opposed by a significant number of organizations that work on this issue. As well, some 2,600 individuals have written to parliamentarians to oppose it. They crashed our system as emails came in at such a fast and furious pace.

When Faith Goldy is aligned with the government in support of this change, we know that it is on the wrong side of history. Why is the government bringing forward these kind of draconian changes that would absolutely put refugees at risk? Why would the government, which promised sunny ways, be doing this in a budget bill?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the New Democratic Party has supported time allocation in the past when it has seen that a measure has been, in its estimation, important.

Things like ensuring that seniors can be more successful because they have the ability to earn more money and keep more money in their pockets, or ideas like ensuring that students have less interest to pay on their student debt, or ensuring that first-time homebuyers have the ability to get into a home more rapidly are the sorts of measures, along with things like the training benefit, that we believe are critically important. It is for that reason that we want to move it to committee and make sure that we can have questions on these measures to ensure that we get on with the work we are doing for Canadians.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order, please. Members will know that remembering the faces and names of every member in the House can be very challenging, and this is a challenge particularly for those who have to call the votes. Members may not have realized that this morning, for the first time, one of the procedural clerks, Robert Benoit, very successfully did so.

Having ratcheted up the pressure on him for this vote, the question is on the motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #1298

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried.

I wish to inform the House that because of the proceedings on the time allocation motion, Government Orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

The House resumed from April 12 consideration of the motion that Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Second reading

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

Mr. Speaker, for the fourth time in as many years, I am delighted to be commenting on the budget tabled by my colleague, the hon. member for Toronto Centre, the Minister of Finance of Canada.

Four years ago, he presented Canadians with a plan to kick-start our economy. As everyone knows, government budget planning is a process that starts with a clear vision of who we want to be as a country, a vision of the future based on precise economic forecasts. The hon. Minister of Finance has done a terrific job over the last few years.

The financial results for the last fiscal year show how well our economy is doing. These results are due to the robust labour market, increased tax revenues and higher corporate profits. They are the direct outcome of the budget initiatives and investments that our government has carried out since taking office.

Thanks to our previous budgets and careful, responsible fiscal management, Canada now has the most vigorous economy in the G7. Better still, our previous budgets lifted 300,000 Canadian children out of poverty, reduced the unemployment rate to a 40-year low, created 900,000 new jobs, and are enhancing the employability of women, indigenous people and newcomers, as noted in the prestigious English magazine, The Economist.

In addition to maintaining the downward trajectory of Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio, the latest budget takes Canadians' concerns into account and addresses each and every one of them. As the next phase in the government's strategic plan, it includes new investments that will maintain our economic growth, support workers, create new jobs, help workers adapt to new technology, better prepare young people and graduates for good jobs, support seniors who want to remain in the workforce, and improve seniors' income security.

There are two main measures in the budget that support first-time home buyers. The first concerns the registered retirement savings plan, or RRSP, and the home buyers' plan, more commonly known as the HBP. The budget increases the RRSP withdrawal limit to $35,000 from $25,000 to buy a first home.

The second measure is new and very attractive for members of the middle class with maximum household income of $120,000. It gives them the opportunity to finance a portion of their home with a mortage from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC. This measure will let new buyers lower their monthly payments with a lower mortgage and make their dream of owning a home come true.

I am convinced and pleased that many Canadian families and many residents of Laval—Les Îles will benefit from these new measures.

There are other measures in the budget that will have a positive impact on our economy and the environment.

For instance, Infrastructure Canada has allocated $3.9 billion to Quebec for over 5,100 projects, including several major projects that will benefit my constituents in Laval.

Indeed, our government has already invested $23.7 million in 26 projects undertaken by the Société de transport de Laval, or STL, as part of the public transit infrastructure fund. With those investments, STL can purchase and replace buses and continue its studies on the electrification of its network. These investments are having a direct impact on the residents of Laval—Les Îles, as they are improving their daily commutes.

People who take the subway at Montmorency, De la Concorde and Cartier stations in Laval will also see some changes, since our government has invested over $215 million for the purchase of 153 new subway cars. This investment will give residents of Laval—Les Îles who go into Montreal for business or pleasure a more reliable, more efficient transit system so they can avoid gridlock.

The Réseau Express Métropolitain, or REM, light rail will terminate in Sainte-Dorothée, in Laval, in 2021, two years from now. The REM will significantly improve public transit in the greater Montreal area. The Canada Infrastructure Bank is providing $1.28 billion to support this ambitious project.

This new budget gives Canada an array of significant, encouraging projects that respect the environment and give Canadians confidence. With an eye on climate change, our government also developed a brand new measure for those who cannot use public transit and want to decrease their greenhouse gas emissions. Our 2019 budget includes a federal incentive of up to $5,000 for the purchase of an electric vehicle. Thanks to our government's investments and the City of Laval's network of charging stations for electric vehicles, the transition from gas vehicles to electric vehicles will be much easier. With this type of initiative our government continues to encourage the transition to a much greener society.

Once again, our government is fulfilling its mandate. It is carrying out the mandate given by Canadians in 2015 when they chose a government with a vision for the future and, above all, a vision that benefits everyone.

We are also improving access to mentorship, and resources for apprenticeships and the startup of new innovative businesses. We are advocating tolerance and inclusion to make Canada, our beautiful country, a model for all countries.

Under the leadership of the right hon. Prime Minister, our government's vision is hopeful and forward looking. It is embodied in budget measures such as those in the 2019 budget. These measures are reassuring to me and to a great number of Canadians.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the floor. I want to say that I am extremely proud to be working on behalf of the people of Laval—Les Îles and to be part of a government that considers all Canadian citizens.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his comments. It is good to work with him on the scrutiny of regulations committee.

My colleague went through a list of investments or expenditures the current government is making over the next couple of years. However, he failed to get to page 284, where there is a clear outline of the dramatically increasing costs of our public debt. In fact, this year we are going to be spending $26 billion on interest alone, and that is rising, as confirmed by the Parliamentary Budget Officer today, to about $34 billion by 2023. This is going to leave a massive expenditure on the shoulders of our children and grandchildren. That is a big concern for me and for many economists.

I am wondering if my colleague would comment on the negative impact that future debt charges are going to have on the ability of future governments to invest in programs that are necessary for the advancement of Canada rather than simply spending all this money on interest. We are spending money today that we cannot afford, which our children and grandchildren are going to pay. It is like leaving a credit card debt to someone else to pay off for one's expenditures.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are not spending; we are investing. I will expand on why we are investing for the member. We are investing in order to support the middle class. We are investing to lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. We are investing to keep the air and drinking water clean for all Canadians. We are investing to grow our economy. We are investing so seniors will have a dignified retirement. We will keep investing in order to improve the lives of future generations and to generate money and pay the debt left to us by the previous government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I got a message from Gary Egli, who lives in Courtenay. He has worked his entire life and paid the maximum in EI contributions every year. Gary recently got sick with cancer. He went to apply for EI and was told that he would be eligible for 15 weeks, despite the fact that he has never collected EI in his entire life.

The NDP has been calling for an EI extension to 50 weeks for people who are sick long-term. I know the Liberal member for Sydney—Victoria has also been advocating to extend EI, yet it has still not been rectified in this budget. Half of Canadians get sick with cancer. We believe that when people are sick, they should be looked after, especially those who are contributing to EI.

The PBO looked at it and said that if we extended the cost of investing in EI benefits to make this program work, to extend it from 15 weeks to 50 weeks, it would cost only an extra 6¢ on $100. It is a nominal fee to protect workers, especially those who are supporting families and their needs to get by.

Therefore, I ask my colleague this. Why have the Liberals not decided to take care of workers who are sick with cancer or another illness and are off work for a long period of time, especially those who have been contributing to the EI program for so many years? We have not seen an increase in this program since 1971. I hope the member can think about his own constituents who may fall ill and require the support of the government, especially regarding money they have paid into the program that they want to get back.

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

Mr. Speaker, I can assure my colleague that this government is taking care of every single citizen in this country from coast to coast to coast, whether these citizens are sick, need assistance or are old.

I would also like to remind him that this government created the Minister of Seniors. We encourage citizens of all ages to return to their workplace and we support them. We support all workers. We are creating a Canadian drug agency to allow those who are sick to pay less for their medications. We are supporting all provincial governments with money in order to help them improve the life of any sick citizen in the country of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, during the last election, Canadians made a clear choice between the Conservatives and the NDP, which planned to have austerity and cuts, and our plan to invest in the middle class. Canadians can see they made the right choice.

Today's economy is one of the fastest growing in the G7. Canadians have created more than 900,000 jobs, and middle-class families are significantly better off. For all the progress made, many Canadians still worry about the future and their ability to spend on what is important now while saving for the future of their families.

With budget 2019, our government is making sure that all Canadians feel the benefits of a growing economy. That means helping more Canadians find an affordable home; prepare for good, well-paying jobs; retire with confidence; and afford prescription medications. While other parties continue to focus on cuts and austerity, our government is building upon our proven plan to invest in the middle class and make an economy that works for everyone.

Most importantly, this budget will have a positive impact in my riding of St. John's East, as well as Newfoundland and Labrador as a whole, as it continues to deliver on helping the middle class and those working hard to join it. In the lead-up to the budget, I spoke to each municipality in my riding and countless stakeholders about what they wanted to see and hear from our government. They were heard.

Some of the highlights of budget 2019's investments in Newfoundland and Labrador include an extra $2.2 billion, through the federal gas tax fund, to address short-term infrastructure priorities in municipalities and first nations communities, which includes $32.9 million for Newfoundland and Labrador. In 2019-20, major transfers will total $767 million, an increase of $17.2 million from the previous year. Since 2015-16, these transfers have grown by $73.6 million for our province.

Another highlight is up to $1.7 billion over 13 years, starting in 2019-20, to establish a new national high-speed Internet program under the universal broadband fund. As well, there is additional funding of $100 million over five years and $20 million thereafter for the new horizons for seniors program, to empower seniors in their communities. This is without even getting into the details of the Atlantic Accord, which provides $2.5 billion for Newfoundland and Labrador. This demonstrates the effectiveness our government has had in working with municipalities and our provincial partners to find solutions to the issues important to Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Moving on to broadband, bringing high-speed Internet to rural, remote and northern communities is a commitment of ours. The government has been steadfast in its commitment to bring higher-quality Internet access to every part of our country, especially those areas that are underserved, including rural, remote and 151 northern communities. In budget 2019, the government announced its commitment to set a national target, in which 95% of Canadian homes and businesses would have access to Internet speeds of at least 50/10 megabits per second by 2026, and 100% by 2030.

To achieve this objective in the quickest and most cost-effective manner, budget 2019 proposes a new, coordinated plan that would deliver between $5 billion and $6 billion in new public and private investments in rural, remote and northern communities over the next 10 years, including those in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Included in this is the commitment to the universal broadband fund. The government will look to top up the connect to innovate program and to secure advanced low-earth orbit satellite capacity to serve the most remote and rural regions of Canada. As well, the Canada Infrastructure Bank will seek to invest $1 billion over the next 10 years and leverage at least $2 billion in additional private sector investment to increase broadband access for Canadians.

Another important topic in my riding is seniors. To improve seniors' quality of life and to better promote seniors' participation and inclusion in rural communities and workplaces across the country, budget 2019 proposes to provide additional funding of $100 million over five years, with $20 million ongoing, for the new horizons for seniors program. In St. John's East, a number of interesting projects have come forward, and I have had the opportunity to make announcements in my riding. Groups such as the Elks Club, the 50+ club, the MacMorran Community Centre and SeniorsNL have all obtained benefit from this program and are advancing important projects in their communities to enhance accessibility, improve seniors' learning to code and provide seniors in our province the opportunity to engage in libraries from coast to coast to coast. It is a great program and we are glad to see that it was expanded under this budget.

Also, to help low-income working seniors keep more of what they earn, budget 2019 proposes to enhance the guaranteed income supplement earnings exemption, beginning next year, in July, for the 2020-21 benefit year. The enhancement would extend eligibility for the earnings exemption to self-employed income, and it would provide a full or partial exemption on up to $15,000 of annual employment and self-employment income for all GIS or allowance recipients as well as their spouses. This will be done by increasing the amount of the full exemption from $3,500 to $5,000 per year for all GIS or allowance recipients as well as their spouses, and by introducing a partial exemption of 50% for which recipients can apply on an additional $10,000 of annual employment and self-employment income beyond $5,000.

This would allow seniors who work part time, who take on an extra job or who get money from other sources to deal with the higher cost of living or to pay for improvements to their homes so they can enjoy a more dignified and solid retirement without worrying about whether they can find the funds. It would also provide seniors with an opportunity to engage in their communities. They can take a part-time job to work at a centre, work with youth, work with other seniors, or do home care. In doing so, they can use their experience in life to help enrich their communities without worrying about the tax implications on them and, more importantly, the implications that work might have on their entitlement to receive the GIS or their allowance.

Pharmacare is one of the biggest issues in my riding. No Canadian should have to choose between paying for prescriptions and putting food on the table. While Canadians are very proud of our health care system, many are still forced to make this impossible decision.

With budget 2019, we are laying the foundation for the implementation of a national pharmacare program while we await the final report by our advisory council on its full implementation. This includes the creation of a Canadian drug agency. Together with the provinces and territories, this agency would negotiate drug prices for all Canadians, and we expect that this would lower costs by up to $3 billion per year. We are also putting in place a national strategy for high-cost drugs for rare diseases, which would help families most in need.

It is critically important to Canadians that we get the implementation of national pharmacare right and that we do not act irresponsibly. Instead, we will lay the groundwork while our government's expert panel continues to help us chart the right path forward.

To get back to a more local issue, I note our investment in the eastern Canada ferry service. Every year, federally funded ferry services in eastern Canada help move more than 800,000 passengers and 100,000 commercial vehicles. This includes services provided by Marine Atlantic, a Crown corporation operating between Cape Breton, Port aux Basques and Argentia.

Port aux Basques is in the riding of the member for Long Range Mountains, and Argentia is in the riding of the member for Avalon. These are essential services for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, because at least half of all goods coming into our province are delivered by the Marine Atlantic service. It is critical.

People visit our beautiful province in the summer, and when they come with their families to take advantage of our trailer parks, summer camps or national parks, they want to be able to drive in their vehicles to see the beauty that our province has to offer. They cannot do this without access through the ferry system. It is wonderful that budget 2019 includes funding for a new ferry that would help ensure that this service can be provided safely and reliably year-round throughout our province.

I have spoken about seniors, broadband and the ferry service, and now I would like to speak about housing affordability. It is something that affects not only people in Newfoundland and Labrador but people from coast to coast to coast. Everyone needs a safe and affordable place to call home. However, today too many Canadians are being priced out of the housing market. For 10 years, Conservative politicians like Stephen Harper did nothing to address housing affordability, pushing home ownership further out of reach and putting household debt on the rise.

With budget 2019, our government is making significant investments to help Canadians find an affordable place to call home. The new first-time homebuyers incentive would make home ownership more affordable for first-time buyers by allowing them to lower their monthly mortgage payments through a take-back equity mortgage with CMHC. It would be more flexible, and it would enhance the homebuyers plan that we already have with respect to RRSP contributions. In addition to this, under the homebuyers plan, young homebuyers can take $10,000 from their RRSPs.

I would love to have the opportunity to go on further to talk about the benefits for youth and benefits for people in my riding, but I will get to that in the questions and comments that follow.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, a big part of the budget is the pay we provide for public servants who work so hard for us, day in and day out. We have 90,000 public service workers in Canada. The public service is back to the bargaining table today, April 30.

In 2015, the Prime Minister said that his government would work to restore the trust and respect of public servants and that the public service was a partner that must be valued. However, what has it endured under the Liberal government? Public servants have endured the Phoenix pay system fiasco that has deprived many from actually getting paid. They have endured continual delays in bargaining. They have endured insulting offers that only offered them half the rate of inflation.

Will the Liberal government commit to negotiating a fair contract with our public servants, really treat them with the respect they deserve, which the Liberals promised them four years ago, but has not delivered?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member and I sit together at the natural resources committee where we get to work productively together.

I had the opportunity to meet with PSAC members in my riding last week. They came to me with concerns about Phoenix, as the member raised, as well as certain concerns about whether pay for skilled trades within the public sector was properly compensated, whether pay agents under Phoenix were properly compensated and whether the types of maternity benefit spreading allowed under the EI program should be expanded under the current round of negotiations for the civil service. I understand as well that there is a gap of maybe the federal government offering compensation of an extra 1% and some additional steps in the compensation matrix. The public sector was asking for a 3.5% increase in pay. These are all complicated questions.

Therefore, I took it upon myself to write a letter to the President of the Treasury Board to let her know that anything we could as a government support to help the standard of workers within the federal civil service set the standard for other employers in Canada. It is something I certainly support.

With respect to overall compensation for the public sector, when all the benefits are accounted for and when we look at the increase in the value of our economy and the cost of living increases, I would like us to find an appropriate way so Canadians feel our civil servants are being appropriately compensated and are being paid fairly but not egregiously.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague from St. John's East did not have a chance to get to all the parts of his speech that he wanted to highlight today. I want to give him an opportunity to comment on the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency or, as we call it, ACOA, which plays a vital role not just in Newfoundland and Labrador, but in all of Atlantic Canada. During the recent voting marathon in the House, every member of the Conservative Party stood and voted against funding to that organization.

Would the member for St. John's East like to highlight the importance of that organization to his riding, to our province and to Atlantic Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to have this opportunity to speak about ACOA. ACOA has offices in my riding. It touches many aspects of business life in our province and provides opportunities for new companies to gain access to lower cost financial services. It provides opportunities for business organizations to develop new programs. It also provides opportunities for places like the Genesis Centre, which incubates new companies to have access for mentoring as well as space, facilities and training programs to which they would not otherwise have access.

The proof is in the pudding. When ACOA invests in these companies, it shows real demonstrated year-over-year growth. Places like the Genesis Centre have over $150 million in revenue for the companies incubated there over the last 20 years. When a small wage subsidy might be provided for skilled workers in a company, we see that this six-month wage subsidy extends well beyond to 10 years of full time employment, on average, for employees who are hired.

There is real demonstrated value and a good bang for one's economic buck with respect to economic development, at least for ACOA. I cannot speak to the other economic development agencies.

I was certainly shocked and appalled when members of the official opposition voted against ACOA.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to represent the constituents of Durham and to give my reflections today on the Liberal budget.

This is the Liberals' final budget, and many Canadians are saying thank goodness for that. The fiscal promises made by the Prime Minister, when he sought the trust of Canadians in 2015, were broken by the Liberals within several months. Fundamental promises about when the budget would be balanced, their approach to fiscal management and taxation, all of that was a misleading campaign with respect to what they promised. They promised to be somewhat fiscally prudent in government and they have been nothing but.

I am calling this the bribery budget, not because it comes so quickly after the SNC scandal, which, at its heart, relates to foreign influence and bribery, but this is a case where the Liberals are awash in money and are trying to bribe Canadians with their own money. We need to point that out. It is not only reckless, it is misleading.

Let us start with the numbers on the Liberal bribery budget.

The Liberals are running a $20-billion deficit in this next fiscal year. This is the fiscal year, I would remind members and Canadians, when the Prime Minister said the budget would be balanced, 2019. Not only is it not balanced, but he is running a $20-billion deficit in good economic times. That is very imprudent fiscal management, because there are clouds on the horizon if we look at trade uncertainty and a number of things around the world. To be running reckless, out-of-control structural deficits fuelled by tax increases at a time when the economy is looking like it is at a pivot point is very reckless. It puts us at a disadvantage for being responsive in the future.

We can remember that the Prime Minister promised Canadians in 2015 that he would never run a deficit more than $10 billion. He said that he would run three modest deficits before returning to balance in 2019. That was misleading Canadians. He is running a deficit that is more than twice as much as he promised to ever run.

What is particularly shameful about this fiscal train wreck under the Prime Minister and his finance minister is that in this last year alone, the Liberals have had $27 billion of unanticipated revenues. They are bringing in $27 billion more as a result of their tax increases and, I will acknowledge, higher employment rates because of a recovering and booming U.S. economy.

The Conservatives always said, when we were making the difficult decisions to have a balanced budget in the years after a global recession, that our economy was positioned to do well when the U.S. experienced a full recovery. The U.S. economy has been rocketing. Despite some trade disruptions, we have been seeing more employment as a result.

The government is bringing in $27 billion in unexpected revenue, but what is it doing? It is spending it all and then some, because in this bribery budget, there are $23 billion in new spending. Times are good, the economy is doing fairly well and employment has been increasing, as I said, largely due to the U.S. economy where taxes have been lowered, and the Liberal government has been raising taxes.

We are now at a pivotal point where not only does the global economy look like there could be some clouds on the horizon, but our competitiveness has eroded every month the Prime Minister has been in office. We see businesses relocating to the United States.

I met a tax accountant last year in Oakville who said that every client who had consulted him in the previous year had been arranging the creation of a U.S. subsidiary or had been shifting capital to its U.S. subsidiary. There are clouds on the horizon, so the good times may come to an end. When one's spending is out-stripping revenue, even when getting $27 billion more in revenue that one did not budget for and still spending $20 billion more than that, this is a failure of colossal proportion. The finance minister will have to retire to his villa in France, because he will not be able to show his face on Bay Street again.

This has been an out-of-control train wreck: $23 billion in new spending, a $20 billion deficit and in the last few years the Liberals have raised taxes on anything that has moved. They have raised personal income taxes. They have raised taxes on seniors by cutting back tax-free savings accounts. They have raised taxes on small businesses. There was almost a mutiny by small businesses in Canada as a result of changes the Liberals had already signalled they wanted to do with respect to retained earnings and a range of things. This is why small and medium-sized businesses are arranging their affairs elsewhere.

It does not stop there. The national carbon tax is now in place, so suppliers in the auto supply industry in Ontario, small and medium-sized ones that are not exempt by the government, compete against suppliers in Michigan and Pennsylvania, where there is no carbon tax. There are taxes on the Saturday night, the sharing economy, Uber. The Liberals are taxing that now. They have an escalator tax on alcohol. The Liberals are defying parliamentary tradition. They are not even coming to the legislature to ask for approval of future tax increases. They are automatically scheduling them for certain sections of the economy.

Of course, the Liberals have put $2 billion in tariff taxes on Canadian businesses. They are killing the aluminum boats and the families that sell those, like the Junkin family in Port Perry. They are hurting our metal fabricators across the country. On Prince Edward Island, I met with a great employer that was hurting as a result of the Liberals' tariffs.

This is why they are raising $27 billion more. The Liberals have raised taxes on everything that has moved. They have made us non-competitive. They see capital and talent going to the United States, yet there is nothing in this budget for General Motors in my community. In fact, the regional chair of Durham did not even get a courtesy phone call from the Prime Minister until three weeks later. I was proud that my leader was in Oshawa the next day to listen, alongside my colleague from Oshawa.

GM and auto are suffering because of the three Ts: taxes, tariffs and trade uncertainty. That is why GM is relocating to other operations in the U.S. The government was asleep at the switch when tariffs were applied. It has bumbled the NAFTA negotiations. When Mexico completes an agreement with the U.S. before Canada, which had a free trade agreement for almost a decade prior to Mexico's joining the party, it is a failure.

With respect to the Canada training benefit, I want to alert Canadians that it is a made-up element of this budget. I have checked with provinces. Provinces are in charge of training and they have not even been consulted by the Liberals on the so-called Canada training benefit. The Liberals have not consulted provinces, which actually do the education training, whether it is the trades or the colleges. They have not consulted employers.

What is the Canada training benefit? It kind of looks like a tuition tax credit for middle age. That is great if somebody wants to take an interest course when he or she is 40. However, I want training or an assistance program for people transitioning now out of the auto industry because of the Liberals' incompetence. They have not even consulted the Province of Ontario, and the province is in charge of training. There is no matching of what our economy needs with the training to meet that need and the people who need the training.

That is how the Canada jobs benefit, under the Conservative government, operated. There needed to be the employee, the employer and the province at the table. This is a shell game where the Liberals have the Canada training benefit. They have talked to nobody about it. It is a few months before an election. It is a fraud.

There was nothing else in there for productivity and to reduce taxes to keep our competitive edge to ensure manufacturers in Durham could compete for jobs in the United States. With the Liberals' inaction on trade and tariffs and their carbon tax, all of these things are making it hard for us to compete.

With this budget, we see the Liberal bribery budget with all its warts. With $27 billion in new revenue, they are still running a $20 billion deficit and they have committed $22 billion in new spending—with Canadians' money.

This budget will pass through the House. The only way to truly stop the Liberal bribery budget is with a change of government on October 21.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite talked about changing this budget. Canadians had that opportunity back in October of 2015, when they soundly rejected Stephen Harper's politics of austerity and when they looked at what the Harper government was able to accomplish.

I would challenge the member any day to talk about the types of things our government has done in the last three and a half years, such as creating 900,000 jobs by working with Canadians and, unlike the false impression the member across the way is trying to give, providing the tax breaks that the member voted against. We provided a tax break to Canada's middle class, and the Conservative Party, including that member, voted against it.

The member can say whatever he wants, but at the end of the day the facts speak the truth, and the truth is that over 900,000 jobs were created and hundreds of thousands of children and seniors were lifted out of poverty, and the list goes on.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised my friend used the term “false impression” and referenced the 2015 election. He and his Prime Minister promised that this year we would have a balanced budget. I would remind him to look in the budget. There is a $20-billion deficit. The government's entire fiscal promise to Canadians was a false impression, or incompetence; with the Liberal Prime Minister, I am more apt to believe a bit of both.

I am going to challenge my friend from Winnipeg North. When he is done his round tables at the McDonald's this Saturday, I want him to meet with Minister Kelvin Goertzen, the Minister of Education and Training in Manitoba, and ask him if the Government of Manitoba was consulted on the Canada training benefit.

I know the answer: It was not. That member's province, friendly Manitoba, has responsibility for training. The federal Liberal government has set up a Canada training benefit, but it has not consulted the provinces and it has not consulted employers.

Just like its plans on the fiscal side, the Liberal government has no plan for our future. Our only promise for the future, whether it is in Manitoba or Ontario, is a change of government.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

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

I cannot help but respond when I hear the member for Winnipeg North say that Canadians chose to put an end to austerity. There is a huge difference between austerity and the deficit-palooza we have been experiencing ever since. It is pathetic and completely irresponsible. I agree with my colleague from Durham on that.

Obviously, I understand that he is concerned about workers at the GM plant in Oshawa. There is no long-term vision to try to keep those big plants here in Canada, to open more plants, and to manufacture models of the future rather than models that are going to be discontinued. Could we build vehicles of the future that would sell well and ensure that jobs are not lost in this industry?

I would like to ask my colleague whether he noticed any hidden or dangerous measures when he pored over this bill. That is the challenge that we, as parliamentarians, have to face. We need to go over this phone-book-sized bill with a fine-tooth comb to make sure we do not miss anything, but we do not have time for that. As a result, the last omnibus bill contained a ridiculous, half-baked measure on SNC-Lavalin and now we are seeing the terrible impact that is having on Quebec, jobs and engineering in Canada. It also created a huge scandal that is going to hurt the Liberals in the next election. It serves them right.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no need to choose between austerity and a balanced budget. There needs to be a plan and the Liberal government does not have one. It just keeps spending and raising taxes. That is not a plan and that is certainly not going to save the jobs at the GM plant in Oshawa.

With the flawed NAFTA agreement and higher taxes, including the carbon tax, a company like GM cannot compete with states neighbouring Ontario, such as Michigan and Pennsylvania. There is uneasiness in Ontario's private sector because of this government. We need a new approach in October, the Conservative Party approach.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in this House to address the budget implementation act.

Of course, we all get into politics for our own reasons. My own priorities are to help create a more prosperous, socially just and environmentally healthy Canada.

When I looked back to when I was making the decision to run for office, I could not help but think of the community I came from in Pictou County, Nova Scotia, and my own family. Not long beforehand, I had spent some time out west. One of my sisters is a doctor who moved to Ontario. Another sister became a chiropractor and moved out of the province as well. I have a few younger sisters who had to move away from home for work. Out of the six of us, not one of us in 2015 was living and working in the area where we grew up, and that is a problem.

I have seen the impact of slow economic growth on communities like mine, and the real problem in Nova Scotia was that this situation was not unique to the Fraser family. If we inserted the name of any one of our neighbours, we would have found somebody who moved away from home because they did not have a chance to make ends meet, pay off their student loans or, in some circumstances, even get by. However, I am pleased with where we are at today when I look at the state of our economy nationally and also back home in Nova Scotia.

Members have heard a number of times over the course of this debate that the Canadian economy has added over 900,000 jobs since 2015 and that unemployment is at an all-time low. This is reflected in the experience of Nova Scotia as well. Our unemployment rate is at the lowest rate in my home province since we started keeping track of those statistics over 40 years ago. At the same time, the last time I checked the jobs report, we had just received the numbers for January and February, and I saw that the provincial economy in Nova Scotia had added 7,500 jobs. This is important, because these were predominantly private sector, full-time jobs that will provide an opportunity for people to stay at home if they want to.

These things do not just happen by accident; they happen as a result of Canadians working hard together. They develop from policies that create the conditions for economic success. Those kinds of policies are what I have seen implemented from day one and what I see again in this budget implementation act.

We can look at some of the investments in infrastructure that help put people to work in the short term but also create stronger communities that are designed for success in the long term, and we need look no further than my own backyard. We have a major highway-twinning project going forward for construction of Highway 104 between Sutherlands River and Antigonish. Not only is it going to create up to 500 jobs at its peak, but it is also going to improve the transportation network and help businesses and people get to where they are going more effectively and, importantly, more safely.

We can look at projects like the new Pictou Campus Nova Scotia Community College Trades & Innovation Centre, which has put about 125 people to work during the construction phase and is also helping to educate the next generation of skilled workers.

We have major projects going on at St. Francis Xavier University, a Centre for Innovation in Health and an Institute of Government, that are going to help educate people for generations to come and create a significant number of jobs in the short term.

We also see investments in key strategic sectors, such as the fishery, where we are legislating protection of the owner-operator model to make sure that the economic benefits of the inshore fishery stay in rural communities. We are seeing the development of a $325-million Atlantic fisheries fund that is benefiting things like the North Bay Fisherman's Co-op to allow them to extend their season and get a higher price for their product. We see investments at the Halifax Stanfield International Airport to develop the Air Cargo Logistics Park, which is going to make it easier to get the products to market. We also see trade deals that are knocking off tariffs on the shellfish industry, and in some instances, in terms of the price, will put upwards of 20% back in the pockets of local communities and the people who live there.

We also see investments in this budget implementation act in things like the accelerated capital cost writedown for manufacturers who purchase equipment, giving them greater savings and beefing up their cash flow. We see investments in things like a reduction of the small business tax rate from 11% to 9%.

We see, importantly for rural communities, a commitment to connectivity like we have never seen before. We have a plan that is going to make sure that 95% of Canadian households are connected to high-speed Internet by 2025, and by 2030, there will not be a Canadian home or business that does not have access to high-speed Internet. This is incredibly important. I have spoken to people back home who have had to close their storefront because they could not process credit and debit transactions when the signal was bad. In tourism communities like Sherbrooke, for example, business life is being able to process transactions when people show up who do not carry cash.

I have talked to people in the seafood processing sector who could not upload their documents to take part in seafood trade shows in Boston, upon which their entire financial success depends. These are smart investments that are making a real difference to Canadians.

It is important that we do not just focus on the need to grow the economy, but to do it in a way that works for everyone. In the globalized economy in which we live, the rich are continuing to get richer. In a country as wealthy as Canada, it is unconscionable to me that when I knock on doors, there are families whose kids do not have enough to eat. The phone number for the power company is on speed dial in our constituency offices because we deal with people who cannot afford to keep the lights on.

We are reordering the way that our economy works to make sure that it benefits every Canadian. We are implementing programs that put more money in the pockets of nine out of 10 Canadian families, such as the Canada child benefit. This policy on its own has lifted approximately 300,000 Canadian children out of poverty. In the communities I represent, annually this sends $48 million directly to the families I represent. It helps 12,000 kids.

While these statistics are nice, what really speaks volumes to me is the human impact, the stories I hear in my community. When a single mom in the town of Stellarton tells me that she is able to afford clothes for her kids on the first day of school, I know we are on the right track. When I talk to people who found work in our communities, they say that they were lucky to be able to find a job in another part of Canada or in the United States, but now that they have come home, they are proud, because their children deserve to have their father around and not have him fly away for three weeks at a time. It is these stories that motivate me every day.

I want to draw particular attention to a number of groups that we have been trying to help that are getting some attention in this budget. When I look at the measures we have implemented for seniors, I know they are getting a little extra help. There is not a group that deserves it more. In the province where I live, we have among the highest per capita rate of seniors for our population. In small communities our young people have historically been leaving, and it is a real problem, because we want to be more than retirement communities, yet we know that we have to support the seniors who live there now.

That is why we have rolled back the age of eligibility for old age security from 67 to 65. That is why we have beefed up the guaranteed income supplement for our most vulnerable low-income seniors, in some cases putting up to $1,000 a year directly into their pockets. That is why we have beefed up the Canada pension plan to ensure that the next generation can continue to have a secure and dignified retirement.

In this budget, we have also implemented measures that allow the minister to waive the requirement for an application to qualify for the Canada pension plan. This is going to help 40,000 Canadian seniors get the benefits they are entitled to today but are not receiving.

With the limited time I have remaining, I want to focus on the topic that is near and dear to my heart: climate change. There might not be a more important fight we could be having than the fight against climate change. Divisive as it may be, this is an all-hands-on-deck moment that we need to get behind. Our economy will not matter much if we do not have a planet to live on.

We are moving forward with a serious plan that is going to reduce our emissions. We are putting a price on pollution and returning money to residents to ensure that 80% of Canadians who are subject to this plan are better off. While it does not apply in Nova Scotia, we made sure that it is not free to pollute anywhere in Canada. We are also making historic investments in things like transit and phasing out coal, making sure that 90% of our electricity is generated from clean resources by the year 2030.

As well, we are protecting nature to a degree that no government in Canada's history ever has. Just last year, we announced $1.3 billion towards nature and conservation efforts. This is going to ensure that our places are protected, our species have a place to call home, and that we are doing the right thing to protect our natural environment for the next generation.

As I said at the opening of my remarks, I am committed to building a Canada that is more prosperous, socially just and environmentally healthy. This budget pushes that agenda forward, and I could not be more proud to stand up and defend these measures, because I see the progress that they are creating at home.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, for his speech. He mentioned a few things that are worth a closer look.

The hon. member was elected to the House of Commons for the first time four years ago, just like me. He tabled a platform at that time. He made some commitments with people, saying that we would just have a small deficit for the next three years because the Liberals wanted to stimulate the economy with infrastructure projects.

That is what he and his colleagues said in 2015. He said that in 2019 we would have a balanced budget. The reality is anything but that. We have seen three major deficits in the first three years, and we have a $19.8-billion deficit today instead of zero.

How can the member face his constituents in the next weeks and say, “Believe me”? It is impossible.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. He seems to have left his French at the door. As for me, I have practised my French almost every week since the 2015 election.

However, for the purposes of this question I hope he will accept an answer in English.

It is important to my constituents to know that we are managing the nation's finances in a responsible way, but that includes taking advantage of the opportunity to make investments that are going to grow our economy. The fact is that because of the investments we are making, our economy is growing faster than the national debt is growing.

I cannot help but point out the irony of the question about deficits and irresponsible spending coming from my friends among the Conservative Party, who racked up $150 billion of debt during the time Stephen Harper was prime minister. The Conservatives had one year, albeit during a recession, with a debt of $55 billion, but all they had to show for it was the slowest rate of growth since the Great Depression.

We have made investments in infrastructure that are actually putting people to work. Our policies are allowing businesses to create jobs at a faster rate than they have in a very long time. The net result of these investments is that our economy is growing fast enough that we are in a better fiscal position today than we were three years ago.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change often talks about how high a priority this is for him. However, when we look at the current situation, the budget or just the headlines, it is clear that there is a disconnect, from a financial point of view. It is valid to bring up deficits, but the most urgent issue is climate warming. One province, Alberta, has based its economy on oil production. What is the government going to do to come up with some kind of social licence, and what efforts will be made to limit greenhouse gas emissions? These things will not happen overnight. Oil is to Alberta what potatoes are to Prince Edward Island. I can see why they are scratching their heads, saying they cannot stop production because it would bring their economy to a halt.

How does the government plan to convince Albertans to accept help from across Canada in order to migrate to some other basis for their economy? What is it suggesting? It sounds like it is going to take 200 years to meet our targets. That is pathetic.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I will preface my answer to this question by explaining that despite being a proponent of meaningful action on climate change, I am not an opponent of the energy industry. However, I recognize that the future of the energy industry has to involve the conversation about clean energy.

Many Albertans depend on the oil and gas sector, but when I look outside the oil and gas sector, I see great hope in the province of Alberta for diversifying the economy. In fact, across Canada I see diversification that is very exciting.

We are putting certain incentives in place, like putting a price on pollution that is going to encourage people to make cleaner choices. We have created funds like the low-carbon economy fund, which is helping by investing in energy efficiency so that people create less demand for conventional oil and gas projects, enabling us to transition to a low-carbon economy over time.

However, we are running out of time. That is why we have to do as much as we can as quickly as we can, and that is why I am excited about some of the measures I canvassed in my remarks. I know together we are going to arrive at a sustainable future.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to deliver my first address in this chamber as the member of Parliament for York—Simcoe. It is a great privilege and responsibility to represent the good people of York—Simcoe in the House of Commons. I would like to thank them for placing their trust and confidence in me. I will work every single day to do my very best to represent their interests here in Ottawa.

With that in mind, I think it is very appropriate that my maiden speech concerns the current government's latest budget, as it will impact the lives of my constituents in so many different ways. I have spent my entire life in York—Simcoe. It is my home. The people I now represent are my friends, family and neighbours. These people are hard-working Canadians of all backgrounds, who hold strong family values, a commitment to serving others and a dedication to building up our community.

I would like to take a moment to thank my predecessor, the hon. Peter Van Loan, who exemplified this dedication for over 14 years while serving as the MP for York—Simcoe and as a cabinet minister. I am grateful for the guidance and experience he has shared with me over the past few months.

Truly I would not be standing here today without the love of my family, who have supported me every step of the way on this adventure. I especially want to thank my best friend and wife of 23 years, Suzanne Howes, who inspires me and grounds me in all I do. I am also grateful for the support of my best buddy and son, Graydon, who is studying political science at Guelph. I hope he has some more content for his essay now. As one of his professors told him, “There isn't a much better way to learn about the Canadian political process than to have your dad become an MP.” Of course, I would also like to thank my parents, Joan and Fred, and my brother, Fred Junior, and his family, all of whom have shown me that anything is possible when one works hard.

This brings us to the budget bill being debated today. Unfortunately, because of the fiscal policies of the current government, Canadians are having to work even harder just to make ends meet. Having spent the past few months knocking on doors and meeting with residents of York—Simcoe, it is clear to me just how out of touch the government is and how misplaced its priorities are from everyday Canadians.

I am especially concerned with the government's clear indifference to small business owners in this country, which is apparent once more in this year's budget. Prior to entering politics, I spent my entire adult life as a small business owner and operator. I know first-hand the challenges and sacrifices needed to operate a small business. Small business owners take risks, invest in capital and hire others in their communities. They are the backbone of the Canadian economy. Through policies like the job-killing carbon tax, increased CPP and EI premiums, increased personal income tax rates for entrepreneurs, and changes to the small business tax rate, the government has shown it does not care about small business owners whatsoever.

The Liberal finance minister even went as far as calling them tax cheats. This attitude is a major reason I decided to put my name forward to become the MP for York—Simcoe. Small business owners deserve to be treated with respect and should be given opportunities to succeed by their government. While this budget confirms that the Liberals are failing small business owners, I will work tirelessly to stand up for them as the member of Parliament for York—Simcoe.

Another issue of great importance in my riding is the precious jewel of our community, Lake Simcoe. Lake Simcoe is the largest interior lake in southern Ontario. It provides drinking water for over half a million people. It generates more than $200 million in tourism and recreational activities. It is home to 75 fish species and at least 30 species at risk.

I grew up on the shores of Lake Simcoe and have lived, worked and played on it my entire life. My wife is a member of the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation, right on the lake. I have operated Fish Crisp Enterprises, a marina and an ice fishing business based on Lake Simcoe for several years. I have also been boating, fishing and flying a float plane around the lake for decades. I have been a member of the Lake Simcoe Fisheries Stakeholder Committee and the Georgina Waterways Advisory Committee, both of which are dedicated to the responsible stewardship of the lake. I know the lake, and I know how important it is to York—Simcoe.

Unfortunately, the Lake Simcoe ecosystem has been threatened by rising phosphorus levels, invasive species and significant population growths in the watershed. In response, the previous Conservative government introduced the $60-million Lake Simcoe cleanup fund in 2007. Over 200 grassroots, community-based projects were supported by the cleanup fund, which made a real difference in improving the health of the lake.

This was “boots on the ground” environmental policy, with measurable results. Fish and wildlife populations native to Lake Simcoe were restored, and research and monitoring capabilities were enhanced. The ecosystem was protected and strengthened from the threat of invasive species, and over 72,000 trees, shrubs and grasses were planted. These were just some of the many worthwhile projects supported by the cleanup fund. However, although there was much more work to be done to protect and restore the lake, the Liberals cancelled the Lake Simcoe cleanup fund in their 2017 budget, and again refused to restore it in 2018.

Despite empty pledges made by the Prime Minister in Keswick just two months ago, the budget before us today confirms once more that Lake Simcoe does not matter to the government. Lake Simcoe is the lifeblood of our community and a vital resource for our country. It is the sort of project that a government that supposedly cares about the environment should invest in. Instead, the residents of York—Simcoe are forced to pay a carbon tax that does nothing for the environment. It is a tax plan, while the Lake Simcoe cleanup fund remains cancelled. As the MP for York—Simcoe, I will do everything I can to save Lake Simcoe and make sure it is protected and enjoyed for generations to come.

I have come to this place as a proud resident of a mostly rural community. York—Simcoe is made up of small towns: Mount Albert, Queensville, Sharon, Bond Head, Bradford, Newton Robinson, Belhaven, Egypt, Island Grove, Jackson's Point, Keswick, Pefferlaw, Port Bolster, Willow Beach, Sutton and Virginia, just to name a few. These are the sorts of places where school plays, church bake sales, the Bradford Carrot Fest in the Holland Marsh, the Sutton Fair & Horse Show, now in its 164th year, and the Sharon Temple events are some of the biggest highlights on the calendar.

However, my riding, like many rural ridings, is starving for infrastructure investment. While urban areas and big cities have received all the attention from the Liberal government, smaller communities like mine have been left behind. Residents of York—Simcoe find themselves on the outside looking in, while their roads and bridges crumble and their Internet speeds slow to a crawl.

Unfortunately for York—Simcoe and many other rural ridings across the country, the budget before us does little to improve this situation. As the MP for York—Simcoe, I will make sure that our community and rural communities across Canada are never forgotten. With its scandals, misplaced priorities, out-of-control spending and rising deficits, the government has failed the ordinary families, seniors and students I was elected to represent. This is clear once again with this cover-up budget we are debating today. The people of York—Simcoe want a government that will support small businesses, protect Lake Simcoe's environment and invest in the needed infrastructure in our community.

The people of York—Simcoe and Canadians all across this great country want a government that will respect their tax dollars, listen and work hard on their behalf. While the Liberal government may have failed Canadians in this regard, I am confident that Canada's Conservatives will stand up for them.

Working hard for the people of York—Simcoe and having the opportunity to deliver results for my community is what I value most about this job. For as long as I have the privilege of serving here, no matter what side of the chamber I am on and no matter what topic is being discussed, I will always be on their side.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member opposite on his first speech. He spent a great deal of time talking about Lake Simcoe. Throughout Canada, we have many beautiful lakes, rivers, waterways and so forth. I am sure he would share the concern with regard to Canada's environment. This is something that is always top of mind for Canadians, no matter where they live in our vast country.

One issue is trying to get to the bottom of what political parties have to say. We have talked a great deal about the idea that pollution should not be free and that there should be a price on it. That is something we have acted on where provinces have not. Maybe five provinces have not acted on it, so the federal government has come to the plate.

We are waiting for the Conservative plan. The leader of the Conservative Party indicated long ago that it would not be too long and that it was coming. We have been waiting for over a year now. Would he not agree that Canadians are entitled to get a sense of what the official opposition's plans are regarding Canada's environment? Would he not think that would be healthy—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please.

The hon. member for York—Simcoe.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our leader has responded to that question. Everyone is very excited about seeing our environmental plan, which is going to be released before June, as he said. The previous Conservative government had a boots-on-the-ground policy with the Lake Simcoe clean-up fund, which the Liberal government cancelled.

Lake Simcoe stretches into six or seven ridings in Ontario and provides drinking water for half a million people. For every dollar invested in the Lake Simcoe clean-up fund, a boots-on-the-ground fund, over $6 in revenue was generated throughout the economy. This was good environmental policy we were looking for, and it is something the Liberals should look at instead of a broad-based carbon tax that penalizes.

There is a first nation in York—Simcoe, and right now it is subject to a tax on diesel fuel for its barge. This is the only way these people can get home at night. That tax is affecting some of our more disadvantaged people because of where they live. York—Simcoe is also a vastly rural riding. There is not public transportation everywhere. People have to drive to work. This carbon tax is one more thing that puts people over the edge. We have small—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We will try to get in one more question in the five minutes we have.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Hochelaga.

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

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to congratulate my colleague, who is putting his earpiece in, on being elected and delivering his inaugural speech. That said, the questions that follow are always stressful.

The federal budget that we have been presented with falls well short of making our tax system fairer, and it continues to protect the richest members of our society, who are friends with the Liberals.

Does the member think that the stock option deduction for already wealthy CEOs should be eliminated entirely?

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will have to look into the CEO buyback plan. I am not familiar with that plan. I am just being honest. If someone asks me about apples, I will give them apples. I will have to look into that plan to make a decision.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from York—Simcoe on his inaugural speech in the House of Commons and I wish him many, many years of success going forward.

I have a very important question for him based on his local constituency. What does he see as his priority for his constituents going forward as he serves the good people of York—Simcoe?

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am fresh now because I just finished a by-election. Knocking on doors, I heard that people are very concerned that the government is behind the curve. It is reactionary on everything. Farmers are small business people. There are people out west who are concerned about the government.

When are we going to get an ambassador back in China? People are asking that question. They want to know that we have a relationship with China and that we can do something about canola. People are very concerned that the government is getting behind the curve. It is a global world, and we cannot afford to be behind the curve now.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today. Before I begin, I would like express support for those of my constituents who are experiencing extreme flooding and for the people of Sainte-Marthe-sur-le-Lac, who are facing major challenges.

Today, I am honoured to have the opportunity to talk about our government's plan to invest in the middle class and create an economy that works for everyone.

The purpose of Bill C-97 is to implement key measures in the 2019 budget. Canadians can see that they made the right choice. Canada's economy is now among the most dynamic in the G7. Canadians have created over 900,000 jobs, and middle-class families are better off. The economy is stronger; more good, well-paid, middle-class jobs are available; and people working hard to join the middle class are getting more help. People of all ages can be proud to live and work in our economy.

As we all know, Canadian seniors have contributed a great deal to their communities throughout their lives. They have a wealth of knowledge, experience and skills that they can continue to share.

Budget 2019 recognizes the contribution that seniors have made, and we are showing our support for them by investing in their well-being. Unlike the previous government, which wanted to raise the age of retirement, our government made a commitment to help seniors. Budget 2019 helps seniors get actively involved in society, including taking paid work if they wish, and will help them transition to retirement when they decide to leave the workforce.

Furthermore, we want to make low-income seniors more financially secure if they decide to remain in the workforce. Our government understands that many seniors choose to remain in the workforce after retirement. Some do so to maintain social ties to their communities, while others like earning extra income to spend on their children or grandchildren. Some simply love what they do and want to continue doing it, which is good for our society. No matter the reason, we all benefit from their skills.

Sadly, some seniors are penalized for choosing to stay at work. The government reduces their guaranteed income supplement benefits or allowance for every dollar earned over the annual GIS earnings exemption of $3,500.

Self-employment income is not eligible for the exemption under existing law. That means they lose their hard-earned income. The bill we are debating today would fix that problem. It would allow seniors to keep more of their GIS benefits or allowance and more of what they earn by enhancing the GIS earnings exemption beginning with the July 2020-21 benefit year.

This measure would extend eligibility for the earnings exemption to self-employment income. It would increase the amount of the annual exemption from $3,500 to $5,000. This measure includes a partial exemption of 50%, to apply on up to $10,000 of annual employment and self-employment income beyond the $5,000 threshold. That means eligible seniors could get a full or partial exemption on up to $15,000 of income. In Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, this measure will change seniors' lives. Seniors who want to continue working will be able to keep more money in their pockets.

We also want to empower seniors in their communities. Our government recognizes that not all seniors can or want to remain in the workforce. We know that those who retire often face isolation in their retirement years, a situation sometimes made worse by ageism, poor health, reduced mobility, poverty and even abuse. Fortunately, we can help improve matters.

My colleagues are surely aware of the new horizons for seniors program. It seeks to eliminate barriers to inclusion and mobilize seniors within their communities with initiatives ranging from new equipment for seniors centres to financial literacy classes and volunteer opportunities, to name just a few.

I have some examples from the riding of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, from Deux-Montagnes, Saint-Eustache, Boisbriand and Rosemère. The Heritage Social Club received $25,000 to renovate its roof. Four Corners received $23,000 to convert their facilities. There is also the Centre d'action bénévole, the Cœurs joyeux club in Saint-Eustache, the Centre d'entraide Racine-Lavoie, and the Maison des citoyens in Deux-Montagnes. There are many examples of organizations like these that are changing the lives of our seniors.

Budget 2019 proposes significant additional funding of $100 million over five years and $20 million every year thereafter for the new horizons for seniors program. This additional funding will ensure that the program can continue to improve seniors' quality of life and better promote the participation and inclusion of older Canadians in their community and their workplace.

One more thing we are doing for seniors is making sure that those who are entitled to Canada pension plan benefits receive them. Isolation can have real consequences for seniors, including financial ones. Isolation or a lack of support are among the reasons why some seniors are late in applying for their pension or do not apply at all. They miss out on receiving their CPP benefits.

The CPP is a key pillar of Canada's retirement system. It provides retired Canadians with a secure, predictable income and peace of mind. Canadian workers currently need to apply to receive their CPP benefits. To help Canadian workers receive the full value of the CPP pension to which they contributed, the 2019 budget implementation bill would proactively enrol CPP contributors who are 70 or older in 2020 who are entitled to their pension. If they have not yet applied, they will receive their benefits. We will make sure that all seniors receive the CPP benefits they are entitled to.

We want to protect Canadians' pension plans. Budget 2019 goes even further so that those who contributed to a pension plan actually receive their benefits. Measures set out in this budget will ensure that the employer's defined benefit plan offers a stable and secure income and the dignified retirement Canadians expect after a lifetime of hard work.

In recent years, we have seen how the security of some private pension plans is put at risk when an employer goes bankrupt. In order to give Canadians greater peace of mind about their retirement, the budget implementation bill proposes new measures to enhance the security of workplace pension plans in the event that the company goes bankrupt.

The measures proposed in Budget 2019 will make insolvency proceedings fairer, more transparent and more accessible for pensioners and workers. They will set higher expectations for, and better oversight of, the behaviour of federally incorporated firms. They will strengthen pension security and the viability of federally regulated pensions.

In summary, for our seniors, the 2019 budget proposals build on our government's strong record of ensuring retirement security for Canadians so that they can enjoy the dignified retirement they deserve after a lifetime of hard work. These proposals are also an important part of our government's plan to create an economy that works for everyone, including seniors.

There is one more very important thing in budget 2019. Our government is introducing the Canada training benefit, a new tool that will help working Canadians find the time and money to upgrade their skills and progress in their careers.

The benefit will enable working Canadians to take four weeks of training every four years and will provide up to $1,000 to help pay for training. The income support will help them cover loss of income. They will have the security of knowing they have a job to come back to when their training is done.

The bill before us proposes the first phase, the Canada training credit. For people who are currently in school, budget 2019 is also investing in 84,000 new work placements per year to help young people acquire new skills and build their resumés.

In closing, Canada's labour market and economy are evolving. With budget 2019 and Bill C-97, we are helping students and workers of all ages prepare for good jobs now and in the future.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the budget implementation bill has made significant changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Could the member tell us why this legislation is in the budget bill and not in stand-alone legislation?

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

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

I understand his concern about refugees. It is a very important issue. However, I would prefer to talk about a matter that we do not agree on, and that is putting a price on pollution and ensuring that all polluters in Canada pay the real cost. All of this will ensure that future generations, our children and grandchildren, will have an environment where they can grow and have a healthy future.

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

Mr. Speaker, given that my colleague is from the Montreal area, she surely knows that there are far more renters than homeowners in Montreal. The vacancy rate in that city is 1.9%, which is below the 3% balanced rate. Montreal has 25,000 people on the waiting list for social housing.

The budget includes a home buyer incentive for those who can afford to buy. However, there is nothing for the construction of new low-income housing, housing co-operatives or affordable rental housing.

I would like to know why the Liberals did not keep their promise to create half a million new affordable social housing units in 10 years.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her very relevant question.

I know my hon. colleague's riding is in Montreal, and mine is located in the suburbs north of Montreal, so I understand her concerns.

We recently introduced the national housing strategy. It is the first of its kind and will tackle this problem over a 10-year period. Yes, there is a shortage of social housing, but existing units can also be renovated, which will help keep our housing stock up. It will take some time for that to happen, but all ridings will get additional housing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear my colleague speak so much about all the work being done to support seniors. In my riding of Cloverdale—Langley City, there are a number of seniors, and many important measures in this bill will support them.

Could the member speak to the seniors population in her riding and how some of these measures will help advance the well-being of seniors?

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

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

Indeed, I made a point of talking about seniors in my speech on the budget today because many seniors live in certain cities in my riding. All the changes to the guaranteed income supplement will make a difference in the lives of those seniors. It is important that they be able to earn some extra income without compromising their eligibility for the GIS. That is important. Some seniors have told me that they would have liked to work just a bit, one day a week, but they would be no further ahead at the end of the year after filing their tax returns.

The new horizons program has been doubled. It is making a difference in our communities. Seniors are less isolated and are able to take part in many activities. I could go on. As for private pension plans, we plan to bring in measures to ensure their solvency.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am fortunate to rise today in the House to speak to the 2019 budget. This is not just the 2019 budget, because the story of this budget is also the story of the 2016, 2017 and 2018 budgets. It is the disappointing story of a government that failed four times to meet the expectations and needs of Quebec's regions, including my region of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean.

Instead, the government constantly makes decisions that benefit the wealthy and the Liberals' friends, who often have access to the Prime Minister's Office. Not everyone is that fortunate. This leads me to the current budget. The government has once again missed its chance to solve several problems affecting the people of my riding of Jonquière, which I have represented for more than four years.

I have risen dozen of times in the House to ask the government about supply management, hoping to ensure that dairy farmers are not used as a bargaining chip in trade negotiations and to demand compensation for farmers who are sacrificed. After three extremely harmful agreements and years of pressure, in this budget, the government only announced funds for dairy farmers, but gave no details or deadlines. The uncertainty continues.

It is outrageous that this government has used its time in office to undermine supply management and now refuses to fix it. It needs to act now, before all our farms go bankrupt, gutting our rural communities and jeopardizing our food sovereignty in the process. While reading this budget, I certainly expected more from a government led by a Prime Minister who came to my region in person to make promises he never really intended to keep.

Do my colleagues know that the second-largest employer in my riding, with over 1,000 workers and a $40-million payroll, is the Jonquière Tax Centre? This is money that the federal government injects directly into the regional economy every year, so it is vital to ensure not only that these workers keep their jobs, but that the centre's future is secure.

I can assure the House that I will continue to defend these good jobs and make sure they are not taken away. Unlike some people, I will not pander for votes with unrealistic proposals that actually harm our region.

In this budget, the government announced an investment of $34 million over five years to create new jobs processing personal tax returns. That aligns perfectly with the mission of the Jonquière Tax Centre. I am going to keep working hard to make sure Jonquière gets its fair share.

In 2016, I was one of the most vocal MPs drawing attention to the importance of doing something about the expiration of the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber agreement. Together with workers and the industry, we urged the government to leverage its strong relationship with the Obama administration to resolve the issue. The government was unable to do so. On countless occasions, we called on the government to implement a proper plan B to support forestry jobs and our businesses. Our regional competitiveness is at stake.

In Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean alone, over 10,000 jobs hang in the balance, but the Liberals keep failing at every turn. Time after time, the government has offered up excuses. Thousands of workers protested in the streets, but the government has never managed to grasp the full impact of U.S. countervailing duties on regions such as Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean.

What does budget 2019 do to protect workers in the likely event that the conflict grinds on for years? There have been a few initiatives here, a few funding announcements there, but nowhere near enough to make anyone forget that the government seems powerless to resolve an issue that has been dragging on for almost three years.

The government never misses an opportunity to boast about its approach to infrastructure, but after four years in office and four budgets, most communities have not even seen any benefits from it, since the government chose to delay the investments, as always. I am wondering what good it does to make promises or allocate money in budgets if the communities cannot use that money immediately. Did the Prime Minister not say that he wanted to take advantage of low interest rates?

The needs are great in ridings like Jonquière, whether in the city of Jonquière, Larouche, Laterrière, Saint-Honoré, Saint-David-de-Falardeau, Saint-Fulgence, Sainte-Rose-du-Nord, Saint-Ambroise, Bégin, Saint-Charles-de-Bourget, Saint-Nazaire, Labrecque or Lamarche. Unfortunately, people will remember budget 2019 as the Liberals' last budget, the budget that did little to help provide infrastructure for our rural municipalities.

The Prime Minister needs to stop playing fast and loose with the regions. Since 2017, I have been calling on the government to do something about the icebreaker file, to no avail. Two years later, the ships of companies like Rio Tinto and Resolute Forest Products are still getting stuck in the ice sometimes. That is happening because the government has not freed up any funding to renew the Coast Guard's icebreaker fleet, which is responsible for keeping the Saguenay River open. It unacceptable that the region is being temporarily cut off from shipping.

The government mismanaged this file and missed its chance to bring in a coherent, properly funded strategy to resolve the problem once and for all. This further illustrates the Prime Minister's lack of interest in rural communities.

How are the regions going to succeed in fighting climate change? That is the type of question we were hoping would be answered in the budget of a self-proclaimed green government. We all agree that the fight against climate change has to be a priority, but it also has to be well thought out so that all regions, including Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean, benefit from the jobs created in the green economy. After four years and four budgets, there is nothing to show for all the government's promises to the regions. It is impossible to develop a unifying strategy unless the regions are invited to join the discussion and be part of the solution in the fight against climate change. That is my priority, but clearly the government feels otherwise.

After being disappointed by four consecutive budgets, the region is going to think that the Liberal government has met very few expectations during its term, even though it had promised the moon. This government is constantly in reaction mode instead of being a true proactive leader. This lack of vision prevents innovative measures from promoting economic development in the regions, like Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean, which is a shame. The people of this region deserve better.

The Liberals have tried to shift to the left in recent elections by stealing many ideas from the NDP. Unfortunately, they forgot to steal our values, like fighting for social justice, equality and the most vulnerable citizens. These values require policies and budgets that invest in human beings and not just multi-billion dollar corporations.

By investing in people, we can move society forward and continue to grow our regions and our communities. The Liberals cannot see that. Canadians and workers should know that they can always count on the NDP to be on their side.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague opposite, who had a lot of ideas. I am very familiar with her beautiful region. I love the Saguenay region. I have cycled the Véloroute des Bleuets, and I know all about the area's blueberries.

At the beginning of her speech, my colleague spoke about food policy and supply management. I agree that it is important for the budget to include a food policy. We have proposed unique, never-before-seen measures to support nutrition in Canada, including in schools. We have begun talks with the provinces and territories on this matter.

Could my colleague make some suggestions and tell us what she would like to see? What does she think about the proposed food policy ideas? This topic is important to me.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

I thank my colleague for her question. I know she came to cycle the Véloroute des Bleuets in my riding a few years ago. It is a very beautiful area, and well worth the visit, not only in summer but also in winter, especially for ice fishing.

I did talk about supply management in my speech. The Liberals and the Prime Minister himself have been to my region on several occasions. They met with dairy farmers and UPA members and promised them there would be no breaches in supply management. They said farmers could count on the Liberals to protect them.

Unfortunately, there have been three trade deals and three breaches in supply management. I cannot emphasize enough that our farmers are the ones who feed us, with the fruits of their own labour. I was with them again last Sunday for the UPA brunch, and I was able to speak with several dairy farmers. They are really disappointed. Yes, the budget does mention that something will be done to support supply management and maintain the system for our dairy farmers. However, no amount or timeframe is indicated. There is no budget or amount mentioned.

The uncertainty continues.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have some thoughts with regard to what the member talked about, from a national perspective. The government has made significant investments in Canada's infrastructure in all regions of the country. We have seen capital infrastructure built.

We have also seen, on a national basis, an investment in people in very real ways. Examples are the substantial increases for some of the poorest seniors in our country, including in the member opposite's own constituency, through the GIS increase and the Canada child benefit program, not to mention, as I referenced earlier, the tax breaks for Canada's middle class, all of which put money into her constituents' pockets. At the same time, the government has invested in capital throughout our country.

Could the member reflect on that aspect of what this government has been able to accomplish, not only in this budget but in previous budgets, which has further supported Canadians in all regions of our country?

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

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

I spoke about infrastructure in the budget. We have been seeing the same thing since 2015. I mentioned a number of municipalities in my riding in my speech. I have been talking with their mayors since 2015. We spent the past two weeks in our ridings. Our rural communities are not seeing any money for infrastructure, even though that is important. National budgets should not be designed just to please multibillionaires or companies like Loblaws, which received $12 million to buy new fridges.

The government needs to invest directly in our communities. There are some very worthwhile projects in my riding of Jonquière, but they are not receiving any funding. I am not the one saying that. The people in my riding tell me that when I meet with them and when I run into them on the weekends.

There are projects on the table, but no money is forthcoming. We are not seeing any investments in infrastructure in our rural communities, including Jonquière, where such investments are badly needed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, I would like to inform the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister that there are only 10 minutes remaining before statements by members. I may have to interrupt him just before statements by members.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth) and to the Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House today to talk about our government's fourth budget.

With this budget, we are continuing to invest in Vaudreuil—Soulanges, in our families, in our young and not so young people, and in our business owners.

I am particularly proud of this budget because it shows that our government continues to listen to the ideas, hopes and dreams of Canadians right across the country, including those in my community of Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Canadians who own small businesses, who raise families, who commute and who protect our environment for future generations, Canadians who work hard every day to leave for future generations a Canada that we can all be proud of.

Our budget shows that we listened to Canadians, like those who are members of the committee that I set up, the Vaudreuil—Soulanges environmental committee. Like all Canadians, they know that climate change is real and that we need to act to build a sustainable, prosperous future.

With budget 2019, we would continue our plan to grow a clean economy, protect our environment and make life more affordable for Canadians, something the previous Conservative government, unfortunately, failed to achieve. My constituents shared with me that they want to play a part in protecting our climate and the quality of our air. Our government listened.

In addition to putting a price on carbon pollution, phasing out coal by 2030 and investing historic amounts in public transportation, budget 2019 proposes strategic investments that would make it more affordable for Canadians to choose zero emission vehicles. In fact, we would make it up to $5,000 cheaper to do so for electric vehicles and hydrogen cell vehicles.

We have listened to people who want more ways to reduce their carbon footprint, and we have created a new tax credit of up to $5,000 for zero-emission vehicles. We will support people who choose zero-emission vehicles by investing $130 million to deploy new recharging stations.

We know that electric, hybrid and alternative vehicle fuel cells are the future of transportation. We also know that Canadians want to play a role in fighting climate change. I am incredibly proud to say that budget 2019 would empower Canadians, particularly those in my community of Vaudreuil—Soulanges, to do just that.

I am fortunate that seniors in Vaudreuil—Soulanges are willing to share their ideas with me and that the seniors' council honours me with its sage advice.

At our first meeting, the members told me that too many seniors live in poverty. We listened to them, and that is why we invested in enhancing guaranteed income supplement benefits, which has put up to $947 more in the pockets of 900,000 vulnerable seniors.

The members told me that, in recent years, the security of workplace pension plans has been jeopardized by corporate bankruptcies. Our government listened to them and plans to implement measures that will better protect pension plans.

Lastly, they told me seniors should be free to work and earn extra income without being penalized. I agree. That is why we enhanced the GIS earnings exemption so that our seniors can earn up to $5,000 without triggering a reduction in GIS benefits, and we introduced a partial exemption on up to $10,000.

This last measure represents a historic investment of $1.8 billion to improve our seniors' quality of life. By increasing the GIS earnings exemption to provide a partial exemption of up to $15,000 of annual employment and self-employment income, we would not only be giving seniors more financial security, we would be working hard to ensure that the access they have to a safe and dignified retirement was in place.

These are just a few examples of what budget 2019 would deliver for seniors across the country. lt would build on our government's record of strengthening the retirement security of Canadians and would ensure that more of our seniors' hard-earned money would rest where it belongs, in their pockets.

In my riding of Vaudreuil—Soulanges, I can count on today's leaders, our young people. Our youth committee and other young people talk to me about the Canada they want to create. Their ideas helped us draft budget 2019, a budget that builds on our efforts to give young people the tools they need to create a future worthy of their ambitions.

First, service opportunities give young Canadians the chance to gain valuable work experience and life experience, all while giving back to their communities in meaningful ways. By investing an additional $315 million in the Canada Service Corps, we would ensure that young Canadians could bring innovative projects to life, realize their dreams, and give back to their respective communities.

Investing in young people means investing in future homeowners. Far too many Canadians go into debt to buy their first home. That is why our government increased the RRSP withdrawal limit for home buyers from $25,000 to $35,000.

It includes a new initiative, called the first-time homebuyers incentive, which would allow eligible first-time homebuyers to finance a portion of their home purchase through a shared equity mortgage with Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The incentive would give eligible buyers a new source of funds they could use to help keep their monthly costs lower. That would be real help for people who want to purchase their first home: young people, families and Canadians who need just that little extra help to make their dream of owning a home a reality.

We know that municipalities also play an important role in people's lives and contribute to building strong communities. In order to provide Canadians with modern, accessible green infrastructure, we invested $180 million in public infrastructure.

Whether we are talking about creating an innovative new library in Vaudreuil-Dorion, making improvements to the Hudson community centre, making the buildings in Pincourt, Saint-Lazare, and Cèdres more accessible, or doing municipal renovations, our constituents are counting on strong green infrastructure.

Budget 2019 takes another step in that direction, thanks to a $2.2-billion investment that seeks to get more infrastructure projects off the ground and contribute to creating jobs and building our communities.

Over the last three years, 33,000 infrastructure projects have been approved right across the country. As an example, my community of Vaudreuil—Soulanges has benefited from a $2.4-million investment to build a new innovative library in Vaudreuil-Dorion, which will serve our growing needs, and a $7.5-million investment to improve the parking spots for the exo train station, which benefits thousands of people in my community.

We know that high-speed Internet access is no longer a luxury. Members of my community in zones of low-speed Internet, such as Saint-Lazare, Rigaud, Hudson and Pointe-Fortune, know this all too well. We have made a commitment to provide them and all those across the country with high-speed Internet by 2030.

Finally, in summary, budget 2019 shows once more that our government listens to Canadians. It would make smart investments in our seniors, our youth and our families and in our towns and cities, and it would invest historic amounts to protect the environment, all of which are necessary to build the stronger Canada we want, and indeed, the stronger Canada we need.

That is good news for my constituents in Vaudreuil—Soulanges and for all Canadians.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member will have five minutes for questions and comments when the House resumes debate on this motion.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, government orders will be extended by nine minutes.

Resuming debate. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to be able to rise and address the House on the important issues. There is nothing more important than the Government of Canada's budget agenda—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I apologize to the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. Apparently, there was time remaining for questions and comments after a previous speech from another parliamentary secretary. However, since that is obviously not going to happen at the moment, I should be going to the hon. member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan. I again apologize to my hon. friend, the parliamentary secretary, who I hope will forgive me.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Absolutely.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I appreciate that.

The hon. member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for being so gracious in allowing me to participate in this debate today.

I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-97, the government's budget implementation act. It allows me the opportunity to examine in some detail why the Liberal government should not be re-elected this October. I say that because the government, if nothing else, has exhibited a litany of broken promises since 2015. Allow me to explain and highlight just a few of them.

As many Canadians may remember, during the election campaign in 2015, one of the many promises the Liberals made was to end what they called the undemocratic practice of introducing omnibus budget bills. What did we see this year? We saw another in a series of omnibus budget bills. In fact, the budget bill tabled this year is over 700 pages in length, making it the most lengthy budget bill ever introduced in parliamentary history. So much for stopping the practice of introducing omnibus budget bills.

I only note this as an example of one of the Liberals' broken promises. There are many more.

I will spend a little time on the second example, which is the most alarming of all the broken promises from the Liberals. This is the promise they made in 2015 to run, only for a three-year period, modest deficits of no more than $10 billion. They also promised that by the year 2019, the fourth year in their four-year mandate, they would return to balanced budgets. It is now 2019 and where are we? Do we have a balanced budget? We certainly do not. In fact, we have the furthest thing from it.

What is truly alarming is that on multiple occasions in committee, the finance minister of our country admitted that not only would we not return to balanced budgets in the foreseeable future, but he did not know when we might.

Let us think about that for just a second. I want all Canadians to think about that as well. The finance minister, who is arguably the second most influential person in Canada with respect to setting economic and fiscal policy, will not say when the budget will be balanced. More troubling is that he cannot because he does not know. The finance minister of Canada does not know when this country might return to balanced budgets. That is far more alarming to me than any pronouncement that any finance minister has made in recent history.

I could have understood if the finance minister would have said that he did not see the country returning to a balanced budget in the next five to 10 years or perhaps even in the next 15 years because of the economic and fiscal direction the government wished to pursue. However, it is more than just troubling for the finance minister to admit that he does not know when the country will return to a balanced budget because he cannot project that far into the future.

All Canadian taxpayers should think about that long and hard, and I hope they do. I hope that come October, they will remember this broken promise. Our country deserves better than a finance minister who does not know when his own budget might be balanced. It is almost unconscionable for a man in his position to admit that, yet that is the case before us.

It is not just the fact that the Liberals broke a promise on omnibus bills and their introduction in Parliament. It is not just the fact that they promised only modest deficits, and they have broken that promise. The Liberals have broken promises on things like electoral reform. They have broken promises on elements such as supporting the oil and gas sector in Canada, something on which the Liberals have deliberately, in my view, misled Canadians.

Let me give a couple of examples of what I say and what I mean by not supporting the oil and gas sector. Almost immediately upon forming government in 2015, the Liberal government killed northern gateway, a project that if it were up and running today, would be bringing untold billions of dollars to the Canadian economy and increasing the price of oil that we could have sold on the world market. However, the Liberal government unilaterally killed a project that had previously been approved by the National Energy Board.

In addition to that, the Liberal government, looking at the proposed energy east project, changed the regulatory provisions contained in the legislation and made upstream and downstream emissions something that had to be considered by the NEB, to the point where TransCanada pulled completely out of that project. That project, which could have been a nation-building project, delivering oil from western Canada to the east coast to their refineries to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, because of the Liberal government, was killed.

What is left? It is the infamous Trans Mountain Kinder Morgan project. The Liberal government has no intention, in my view, of following through on its promise to get that built. Right now, again in my opinion, the Liberal Party is simply doing electoral calculus on how many votes it can gain by not committing to completing this project before the next election. If the Liberals feel they can get more votes in British Columbia and Quebec by stopping this project, then that is what they are going to do.

This is nothing more than a political exercise, but the collateral damage is Canadians, particularly in western Canada, in my province of Saskatchewan and my neighbouring province of Alberta. The energy-producing provinces of the country are the collateral damage of the Liberal government's refusal to honour a promise.

Last but certainly not least, I would point out for all Canadians who may be listening to this debate what the Liberals did with the SNC scandal, as it is now known. The budget implementation bill included, buried deep within that bill, a provision that would allow the government, should it so wish, to introduce something called a DPA, a deferred prosecution agreement. The Liberals did that because the government had been lobbied extensively by SNC-Lavalin and they thought that by introducing it in the bill, it would allow the prosecutors office an opportunity to offer a DPA to SNC-Lavalin. That did not happen, and we know what the results were: the biggest scandal in Canadian political history in the last three decades, which resulted in the former attorney general of Canada resigning, because of the inappropriate pressure put on her by the government, and in the former Treasury Board president resigning in protest over the government's handling of that very key element of the budget implementation bill.

I could go on for quite some considerable time, but I have limited time before me. Let me just conclude by going back to my opening remarks when I said that in my opinion the government did not deserve to be re-elected. I can assure the House and anyone else who may be listening to this debate that in slightly less than six months, Canadians will be able to prove my prediction to be quite accurate.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to follow the thread toward the budget and his thoughts on the budget, in particular the investments we are making as a government in social infrastructure and in taking people out of poverty. People in his riding are now in a better position than they were in 2015 by $2,200, on average. Our cuts on taxes to the middle class and the Canada child benefit we have put forward are benefiting the people in his community.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question, but the answer, quite simply, is no, it is not benefiting any members of my constituency. By contrast, rather than making life more affordable for the middle class, life is getting more expensive for the middle class.

Recent reports have indicated that the average Canadian family will be paying $800 more in taxes now than they did in 2015, before the implementation of the Liberals' first budget. Not only that, the imposition of a carbon tax will ensure that every Canadian family will be paying more money on virtually everything than they did prior. Another report indicated that according to a recent survey, the majority of Canadian families said that they are within $200 of insolvency each and every month. This is truly alarming, and the Liberal government has only itself to blame.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear my friend speak. Only in Ottawa could politicians talk about a deficit of $10 billion being a modest deficit. To most Canadians, the notion that 10 billion of anything as modest, especially dollars, is alarming. The fact that the Liberals campaigned that way was, I suppose, symbolic, but it became a factual representation of their alleged progressiveness.

The member listed a number of the promises that were made, and one was around omnibus legislation. Just recently, my colleague from Vancouver East tried to hive off some immigration changes that are buried at the tail end of this budget, which is something the Liberals clearly promised Canadians they would not do. That kitchen-sink approach to legislation forces members of Parliament to vote en masse for a whole group of different ideas. I do wish, for transparency's sake, that my friend had had more of an allergy to omnibus budget bills when he was on the government benches. The constant repetition of this is what worries me.

My kids recently watched the movie Back to the Future. I believe the future date in that movie was 2015, and they had hoverboards flying everywhere. I watched that movie with my kids, realizing that those promises were just a little overstretched. The Liberals made a promise in 2015 that 2019 would be it. In 2019, the country would return to balance within our federal books.

I wonder if the member can ascribe that same sort of fantasy level of thinking the Liberals applied when talking about fiscal matters that the creators of that excellent movie, starring a great Canadian, made when trying to anticipate a future far off, leading Canadians down that same sort of fantasy path to nowhere and to years upon years of increasing deficits that, of course, will weigh on future generations.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley, for the many years he has put into this place. We have known each other since 2004, when we were both elected. I can only say that I will miss him and the contributions he has made to this place. I wish him nothing but the best of success in all his future endeavours, and I mean that quite sincerely.

With respect to my colleague's comments about the Liberals' prognostications back in 2015 about omnibus budgets being a thing of the past, I can assure my friend, in relation to his comments on watching Back to the Future with his children, that clearly, the finance minister is no Michael J. Fox.

We have not seen anything quite like this in some time. Yes, it is true that the Liberals did not introduce the concept of omnibus bills, which have been done for some time now, but they have taken it to the next level. They have ratcheted it up. We have never seen in parliamentary history a 700-plus-page omnibus bill introduced except by the current government. I agree wholeheartedly with my colleague and my friend that, yes, the appropriate thing would be to hive off so many of the elements contained under one bill into separate pieces of legislation.

As an example, my colleague and friend would agree with me that had the Liberals hived off the provision about deferred prosecution agreements, at least the committee on justice would have been able to further examine why they wanted to introduce that provision and whether it would be something that would benefit the majority of Canadians. They did not. They hid it, and they hid it for one particular reason, which was to try to make sure that they got their friends in corporate Canada, specifically SNC-Lavalin, a special deal. We all know how that has ended. It has blown up in their faces. It did not have to be this way, had they done the right thing and introduced it as a separate, singular piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for this opportunity today to speak to Bill C-97, the budget implementation act.

With budget 2019, our government would continue to invest in the middle class and in communities across Canada, such as Langley City, the Township of Langley and the city of Surrey, all located within the riding I represent, Cloverdale—Langley City.

Whether it is helping Canadians buy their first home or investing in clean energy and public transit, budget 2019 focuses on the current challenges faced by everyday Canadians and would address them in meaningful ways that would give help where people needed it the most. I will be speaking on measures that would address those issues today.

Budget 2019 is our government's fourth budget and would build on the work and progress our government has in made these past four years.

Today Canada's economy is one of the fastest growing in the G7. Since 2015, Canadians have created more than 900,000 new jobs. Thanks to the middle-class tax cut and the tax-free Canada child benefit, families in the riding of Cloverdale—Langley City have more money in their pockets to help make ends meet. However, it is important to recognize that there is still more work to do, and we need to get on it now. Budget 2019 is a good next step that would help ensure that all Canadians share in this growing prosperity.

The biggest issue I hear about at doors in Cloverdale—Langley City is housing. Everyone needs a safe and affordable place to call home, but today too many Canadians are being priced out of the housing market. This budget would help address this issue in several ways.

To start, budget 2019 proposes to invest $300 million to launch a new housing supply challenge. The housing supply challenge would invite municipalities and Canadians across the country to propose new ways to break down barriers that limit the creation of new housing.

We would also expand the rental construction financing initiative, helping to build more affordable rental options for Canadians so they can live near where they work or study, and we are tackling homelessness across the country through the reaching home strategy.

A new rental building project in my riding, with 100 units, had more than 2,000 people apply for those units, demonstrating the need for significantly more rental options in Cloverdale—Langley City.

Budget 2019 proposes an additional $10 billion over nine years, extending this program until 2027-28. This would help create 42,500 new rental units across Canada, with a particular focus in areas of low rental supply.

To address the difficulty young families may have buying their first home, through Bill C-97, budget 2019 proposes a new first-time homebuyer incentive. With this extra help in the shape of a shared equity mortgage through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Canadians could lower their monthly mortgage payments, making home ownership more affordable. The incentive would provide funding of 5% or 10% of the home purchase price for existing or new homes respectively, with no ongoing monthly payments required. The program is expected to help approximately 100,000 Canadians buy homes they can afford.

Additionally, budget 2019 proposes to increase the home buyers' plan withdrawal limit to $35,000 from $25,000. The home buyers' plan allows first-time home buyers to withdraw from their registered retirement savings plans to purchase or build a home without having to pay tax on the withdrawal.

I am excited about what our investments in infrastructure through budget 2019 would mean for communities across the country that need funding to get local projects done. Through budget 2019, we would ensure that infrastructure funding would get to those who have shown that they are willing and able to get projects done: our local and municipal governments.

We would invest a one-time top-up of $2.2 billion, through the federal gas tax fund, to get infrastructure funding in the hands of those who would ensure that it was invested in jobs to build our communities. This funding would address short-term priorities in municipalities and first nation communities. Cloverdale—Langley City would receive an additional top-up of approximately $2,041,652.03. With 95% of this money going toward TransLink, our regional transit infrastructure, it would help deal with a much-needed expansion in support of a growing network for our growing population.

Working with provinces and territories, the government has approved more than 33,000 infrastructure projects for communities across Canada, supported by federal investments of approximately $19.9 billion. In my riding, these investments will mean better highways, cleaner parks and new community centres. In fact, just last week I welcomed the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities to my region for a joint funding announcement with the provincial and municipal governments for major improvements to the Trans-Canada Highway.

The $235.5-million investment will upgrade the stretch of highway between 216th Street and 264th Street and will include new high occupancy vehicle lanes, a new underpass and a new truck parking lot. This is an important step in addressing a significant pinch point in the regional transportation network in the Lower Mainland and the Fraser Valley.

Through Bill C-97, budget 2019 proposes measures that would make life more affordable for Canadian seniors and that would empower those who want to stay active and involved in their communities. Our government would increase the GIS exemption from $3,500 to $5,000 per year to give more of our fixed-income seniors the choice to continue to work without being penalized. We would begin proactive CPP enrolment at age 70 to ensure that no seniors missed out on benefits they were entitled to.

We would increase transparency and launch an initiative to change corporate laws to increase oversight and grant the courts a greater ability to review payments made to executives in the lead-up to insolvency, protecting workplace pensions from predatory practices.

Budget 2019 proposes significant additional funding of $100 million over five years, with $20 million per year ongoing, for the new horizons for seniors program so that it can continue to improve seniors' quality of life and better promote their active participation in the community. Many organizations and seniors have benefited from the new horizons for seniors program in Cloverdale—Langley City. With these enhancements, even more seniors would benefit from additional programs.

I would also like to highlight the work we are doing to address the opioid crisis. Through budget 2018, we provided $231.4 million over five years for measures to help address the growing problem, such as one-time emergency funding of $150 million for provinces and territories for multi-year projects to improve access to evidence-based treatment services.

Budget 2019 would build on this work and proposes to provide additional funding of $30.5 million over five years, starting in 2019-20, with $1 million in ongoing funding, for targeted measures to address persistent gaps in harm reduction and treatment. This funding would support efforts to expand access to a safe supply of prescription opioids, protecting people with problematic opioid use from the risk of overdose and death. It would also support better access to opioid overdose response training and to naloxone, a life-saving medication that can stop or reverse an opioid overdose, in underserved communities.

I recently spoke with the hard-working members of the Langley City Fire Rescue Service, who battle this opioid crisis on a daily basis. They agree that continued investments in the fight to end opioid overdoses and deaths is needed.

Budget 2019 is a budget that would work for everyone. Through this budget, we would implement new programs that would help Canadians progress in their careers, address the growing price of medication and advance our plan to grow a clean economy. I would like to go over these briefly.

First, budget 2019 would introduce a new Canada training benefit, a personalized, portable training benefit to help people plan for and get the training they need. Through this measure, Canadians would get four weeks of training every four years, up to $1,000 to help pay for training, income support to help with everyday expenses and the security of knowing that they would have a job to come back to when their training was done. At a recent meeting with the Greater Langley Chamber of Commerce the need for a well-trained workforce with relevant skills was discussed. The Canada training benefit would help address this need of business.

Through budget 2019, we would lay the foundation for the implementation of a national pharmacare program while we await the final report of our advisory council on its full implementation. We would do so by creating the Canadian drug agency, a national formulary, and a national strategy for high-cost drugs for rare diseases.

Finally, budget 2019 would take the next steps in our plan to grow a clean economy and make life more affordable for Canadians. These steps would include deploying new recharging and refuelling stations and working with manufacturers to secure voluntary zero-emission vehicle sales targets to ensure that vehicle supply meets increased demand.

We would also introduce a new federal purchase incentive of up to $5,000 for electric battery or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. This would help make zero-emission vehicles a realistic option for more Canadians by making them up to $5,000 cheaper, by building the infrastructure to support them and by encouraging new investments in zero-emission vehicle manufacturing here in Canada. To support businesses' adoption of zero-emission vehicles, budget 2019 proposes that these vehicles be eligible for a full tax write-off in the year they are put to use.

Our government has a plan, and that plan is working. Through budget 2019, we would invest in our communities and support those who need it the most. While there is still more work that needs to be done, budget 2019 would be another step in the right direction. This is a budget that I am proud to stand behind, and I urge every member of this chamber to do exactly the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is going to zero in specifically on the Canada training benefit. As I said in my speech earlier today, my research into this benefit showed that it was planned on the back of a napkin and is more of an advertisement for the election than it is anything of substance.

In my community we are looking at auto workers, like those from GM, who are potentially in transition, yet the current government announced a benefit that it has not even consulted the provinces on. The member is probably aware that the provinces control skilled trades and college-based training. In fact, the provinces run most of the retraining programs offered around the country, yet the government announced an initiative in the budget without any consultation with the provinces or territories.

I would ask the member how we can have confidence in a training benefit when the very organizations and jurisdictions that fulfill and deliver that training mandate for Canadians who need new skills to plug into job opportunities in the economy have not even been consulted ahead of this budget. Does that bother the member?

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

Mr. Speaker, the question from the member opposite raises really good questions about how we have a timely and well-trained workforce in today's society.

As I noted in my comments, I had discussions with local business groups, such as the Greater Langley Chamber of Commerce. The members there indicated that they struggle with a workforce that is keeping track and on top of the current job requirements. There are existing training programs, many of them delivered through the provinces and territories, as my colleague noted.

However, federal funding flows through to the provinces and territories and supports much of this retraining. The program we are discussing is another example of that. It is an opportunity for the federal government to support businesses and Canadians in order to keep their skills relevant. Instead of having to take time off, not knowing if they will be coming back to an employer, this provides support for those skills through the employment insurance program.

The business community was also very interested to hear that there will be employment insurance relief for small businesses to support this new program. I think everybody will be very delighted as more details become available.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague from British Columbia. We work together on tourism-related issues. He knows full well the impact the chinook closures are having on coastal communities and fishers in our communities, especially the troll fleet and sport, indigenous and recreational fishers. The minister made this announcement and showed up empty-handed. He had a tool in his toolbox to help support fishers by extending EI and providing compensation to the commercial fleets, which are getting nothing.

The government has been sitting on $17 million of Pacific salmon treaty money, which was meant to compensate area G trollers. That still has not rolled out the door. They have not received the restoration and enhancement money the government promised through the coastal restoration fund. It was a drop in the bucket. The government announced funding for southern resident killer whales. It made announcements in the fall economic update for enhancement and restoration funds.

We are not seeing that money. In fact, the government has not spent the $63 million that was scheduled to be spent in the oceans protection plan in 2017-18. It is not getting the money out the door. Communities do not have confidence that the government has their backs and is in their corner.

What is the member going to do to help get this money out the door, support these communities and encourage the minister to use every tool he has to help support the communities that are being affected by these closures?

The Liberals talk about the balance of the environment and the economy. They have spent $4.5 billion on a leaky pipeline and $1.6 billion subsidizing oil and gas. It is time they invested in coastal communities and in our salmon. As a British Columbian, I hope he will step up and make sure he puts pressure on the Prime Minister and cabinet to do something urgently.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from B.C. for his advocacy for our west coast fisheries.

I note that the member discussed many of the great programs our government has funded and rolled out. It is a level of investment that has been needed for many years.

Yes, there is always a frustration with programs not being designed and implemented as quickly as possible, so I would offer this in response to his question.

All members in this House want to see the west coast fishery and fish stocks survive for the long term. Therefore, we will work with our government to make sure these programs and their funding are delivered to those who could make a difference with respect to these very important issues in British Columbia and for Canadians.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-97, the budget implementation act. I had hoped to have an opportunity to speak to the budget itself, but that of course was denied as a result of the filibuster by the member for Carleton.

It is a very good budget for Prince Edward Island, and it is a long time coming.

During the Harper years, we were particularly hard done by in our province and in our region. Throughout the Harper years, we saw disproportionate cuts to the civil service. We saw cuts to the employment insurance program, which is so very important in seasonal economies such as the one in Prince Edward Island.

We saw the closure of Veterans Affairs district offices, and this is something near and dear to my heart as the member of Parliament for Charlottetown. Charlottetown is the only place outside the national capital region that has a national headquarters of a federal government department. We are immensely proud that the national headquarters of the Department of Veterans Affairs is in Charlottetown, so it was particularly troubling to see that district office close. However, we fixed that.

Also during the Harper years, we saw the closure of the citizenship office. Prince Edward Island was left as the only province in Canada without a citizenship and immigration office at a very time when immigration levels in our province were increasing to the point where we now have the highest per capita immigration in the country. However, we fixed that closure of the immigration office.

We went through a period in the Harper years of the slowest economic growth since R. B. Bennett. We fixed that. We saw an accumulation of $160 billion in new debt during the Harper years, and high unemployment.

In Prince Edward Island, there is an old adage that our economy is somewhat different. We are not subject to the swings we see in the rest of Canada. Therefore, when the economy goes in the tank, it does not dip as far in Prince Edward Island, and when the economy is on fire, it does not excel as much as it does in the rest of the country. Part of that could be because of the seasonal economy. Part of that could be because, until recently, there has not been a lot of industry outside of the seasonal economy. The government sector is quite important. The university sector has been quite important. We have seen that change.

This economic boom, this period of unprecedented growth that we have not seen since the pre-Harper years and that we are experiencing right now, is different. Prince Edward Island is not only sharing in that growth; in many categories we are leading the country. We are leading the country with respect to increases in retail sales. We are leading the country with respect to economic growth. We are leading the country with respect to immigration growth. It has been said that the Prince Edward Island economy is on a tear. That is due in no small part to the economic policies of this government.

Immediately upon being elected, this government brought in the Canada child benefit. I mentioned earlier the pride we have over the fact that there is a national headquarters for a federal government department in Prince Edward Island. The payroll at the national headquarters of the Department of Veterans Affairs is $100 million a year, and $100 million a year is very important to the economy of Prince Edward Island.

Just to get a sense of the importance of the Canada child benefit, which was introduced immediately after our election, the amount of money that is brought into Prince Edward Island through the Canada child benefit is $100 million a year, the same as the payroll at the national headquarters. The difference between the Canada child benefit and the payroll at Veterans Affairs is that the Canada child benefit is tax free. That is one factor. There are multiple factors in the success of the P.E.I. economy in recent years, but one of them is the economic policies of this government.

In a certain sense, we have also become victims of our own success. We share in the national housing crunch. The vacancy rate in the riding I am proud to represent is 0.3%. That is in part because of our growing population and the proliferation of Airbnbs. It is in part because there is so much construction happening around Prince Edward Island that it is very difficult to get tradespeople, in part because of our sky-high tourism numbers and in part because of the seasonal economy, which makes Airbnb particularly attractive.

I indicated that we have in a sense become a victim of our own success. That is also the case with respect to labour shortages, which is why programs like the Atlantic growth strategy and the Atlantic immigration pilot have been so very important. It is also why programs like the Canada training benefit, included in this budget, will be very important to us.

That success has also exerted a strain on our health care system, where it has become harder to get a family doctor. Fortunately, this budget also includes increases to the Canada health and social transfer, which will go some way to alleviating that pressure.

This budget will allow Prince Edward Island to continue its impressive record. As I indicated, with respect to housing there is a 0.3% vacancy rate. There are substantial initiatives in the budget to address the housing crunch in this country, including measures to make housing more affordable for first-time homebuyers, including the retail finance initiative. These are all measures that are welcome and necessary, and for once they are measures that are important for a province that is sharing in the economic success we have seen.

Under the reaching home strategy, a $3-million award, administered through the John Howard Society, was recently announced to tackle homelessness in Prince Edward Island. As I indicated with the rock-bottom vacancy rate in our fair province, this is desperately needed. The good people at the John Howard Society and the board that examines the proposals to attack homelessness are to be commended and supported. This investment will no doubt lift them up.

The other thing I want to mention with respect to housing is something that was specifically mentioned in the budget. It is not very often that Prince Edward Island gets a specific mention in the budget, but there were at least a couple. One was with respect to new ferries for the passage from P.E.I. to Îles de la Madeleine and for the passage from Caribou Island in Nova Scotia to Wood Islands in Prince Edward Island. This is something that really has been the life's work of the hon. member for Cardigan.

On the housing front, there was specific mention of a $50.8-million public housing project in Prince Edward Island. This public housing project is designed for people with complex multiple needs: social, medical and psychological needs. In part, this investment will replace the aging Hillsborough Hospital, but it will be much broader than that. It is an indication of where the government's heart and head are in supporting those who are most vulnerable and providing for those battling mental health, addictions and complicated problems.

I want to close by mentioning two other specific things in the budget. There was specific mention of the Confederation Centre of the Arts. The Confederation Centre of the Arts was built as a monument to the Fathers of Confederation back in 1967. This budget included a $500-million annual increase to the operating budget of the Confederation Centre of the Arts.

The cultural industries are so important to my province, so important to my riding and so important to this country. I am proud, as a Prince Edward Islander, to be able to support this budget.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard recently announced a chinook salmon closure all around Vancouver Island. Depending on who one listens to, that closure, which seeks to change the return rate of chinook salmon in the Fraser River from 90% to 96%—a very marginal increase in return, and one that was not necessarily needed—is going to result in anywhere from $200 million to $500 million in economic damage to fishers and those who depend on the sport fishing industry around Vancouver Island.

I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary can point to some place in the budget where these people, some of whom are about to lose their livelihoods some of whom about to lose a whole summer's worth of work, can see what compensation they will be getting.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent work on the fisheries committee.

The challenge around chinook salmon is certainly a vexing one for this government. We are constantly trying to ensure the protection of our oceans and our biodiversity and the protection of aquatic species at risk while trying to minimize the economic impacts on marine industries.

Protecting the species is a responsibility that is shared by all Canadians. Protection of the stocks in British Columbia is a priority for our government. We recognize the declining status of these populations and their importance. That is why these measures are necessary. They are responsible and science-based, and they are done in consultation with all of the stakeholders involved.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the member can agree that there has been mismanagement of our fish stock by consecutive governments, and as a result they have had to make bold decisions around the closure of the chinook salmon stock.

We have not talked enough about the commercial fleet. In fact, the salmon trawlers are deeply affected by this closure. The closure for them will be extended longer than the closure of the sport sector, all the way until August 20. That is a long period of time without EI or any compensation. The minister has not—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Calgary Shepard is rising on a point of order.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I hate to interrupt the member for Courtenay—Alberni, but he has an important question, and there is so much noise from the antechamber around us from people speaking very loudly that I cannot hear the member speaking in the House. I am interested in hearing both the question and the answer.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

That is a very good point. It just suddenly started, as it was quiet earlier. The Sergeant-at-Arms is now looking into the noise to make sure that it stops. I would venture a guess that those outside the chamber can hear our voices, so I will ask them not to talk as loudly or to whisper.

I thank the hon. member for Calgary Shepard for bringing that up.

The hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will start again.

I want to bring the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard back to the conversation around chinook salmon and the announced closures, the difficult and bold decision that the government had to make because of mismanagement by consecutive Conservative and Liberal governments, especially a decade under the Harper government, which gutted fisheries protections, cut jobs for science and muzzled scientists. This has had a huge impact on the chinook salmon fishery.

I want to focus on the commercial fleet. The commercial fleet has not been getting any sort of compensation or help from the government since the announcement of the closure for the commercial fleet, which continues until August 20. That is a long time without any support for families to trying to make their mortgage payments or keep their boats afloat. There was money put aside, $17 million, that is still sitting in the Pacific salmon treaty fund that has not been used to compensation Area G trawlers specifically.

We are looking for the parliamentary secretary to tell coastal people what Liberals are going to do in terms of their tool box. Are they going to go to communities and my riding, look fishers in the eye and tell them that they are not going to do anything for them, that they are just going to leave them high and dry for the summer, or are they going to make sure they show up and help them get through this very difficult time?

I urge him to do that.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, we know that the closure of any commercial or recreational fishery has a direct impact on communities.

The member was quite right when he talked about the cuts to science under the Harper Conservatives. We have hired 29 new scientists in the Pacific region, and starting this year we will invest over $100 million over five years, and $17 million per year in ongoing support for fisheries stock assessments and rebuilding provisions. Substantial investments are being made.

This is a challenge. It is one on which we are getting the best science advice, and one on which we are doing our level best to consult with all of those who are impacted, including the fishers, indigenous communities, and provincial and territorial governments.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government was proud to put forward its budget on March 19, but what Canadians got was another budget absolutely filled with another huge deficit.

As noted by Ian MacDonald, editor of Policy Magazine:

For [the] finance minister..., the budget was an opportunity to move on from a legacy of broken promises—he pledged $10 billion a year of deficits over four years to balance the books by 2019. Four years later, the projected cumulative deficit from 2016 to 2022 is more than $100 billion, with balance nowhere in sight....

Today I am going to focus my remarks on the current economic climate in Canada, specifically in relation to the housing markets and the government's drive to continue to spend, spend, spend.

Across Canada, there are many thoughts about when to run a deficit and when to increase the national debt load. In my riding of Elgin—Middlesex—London, I recently did a survey. In it, over 90% of my constituents said they would like to see a balanced budget in the near future.

I recognize that there is a time for deficits and there is a time to ensure that our economy is strong, but we have a Prime Minister and a finance minister who do not seem to use the same philosophy as many economists.

There is a big question here, and it comes down to the word “affordability”. I checked the Cambridge Dictionary for its definition, because affordability is going raise big questions as we move into the 2019 election. According to the Cambridge Dictionary, affordability is defined as “the state of being cheap enough for people to be able to buy”.

In its budget, the government brought forward two specific programs focused on first-time homebuyers, trying to find something to make sure that housing was more affordable. First the government increased the RRSP withdrawal amount for homes. Previously, people could remove $25,000, and that has been increased to $35,000. Second, the government introduced the first-time homebuyers incentive.

With respect to the first measure, I have had the opportunity to speak to many real estate agents from LSTAR and the Canadian Real Estate Association. For several years, they have been asking the government to increase the RRSP amount to $35,000. Although I totally agree with that, we have to recognize that right now Canadians are being nickel-and-dimed. They do not have extra money to put into RRSPs so that they can take out more money when buying a home.

This is a huge concern for me. We are talking about affordability here, but people are going home with less money from their paycheques. Canadians are paying more into the Canadian pension plan. They are also now paying the newly introduced carbon tax, especially in the province of Ontario. When I was driving last week, I noticed that Canadians are now spending up to $1.60 a litre on gasoline.

Canadians cannot afford what the government has to offer. Saving money in an RRSP is truly not an option for Canadians.

The government also put forward the first-time homebuyers incentive. Earlier today, a PBO report came out, and I want to read its findings into the record. It noted:

Estimation and projection method:

The cost of the program reflects the cost of borrowing $1.25 billion over three years. CMHC would borrow $250 million in 2019-20, and $500 million in both 2020-21 and 2021-22.

The estimate was calculated using PBO marginal effective interest rate projections on Government of Canada borrowing.

The uncertainty assessment is the key here, and this is what the PBO reported in that respect:

The estimate has high uncertainty. Many of the details relating to the program have yet to be determined or published, therefore many assumptions are used. We assume no credit losses on debt; no gains or losses in the equity holding; 100% of the loans are administered at the beginning of the fiscal year, except in 2019-20 (September 1); the portfolio is fully dispersed at all times, that is, any principal repayments are immediately redistributed to other eligible buyers.... The estimate is sensitive to changes in interest rates, which can vary over time. There is insufficient information on the program to quantify a behavioral response.

This is similar to what my colleague said earlier. It is as if Liberals come up with some of these plans on the back of a napkin. When coming forward with plans, they should be asking how things are actually going to pan out and what we will get in the long run.

Douglas Porter, who members may know is from BMO, has indicated:

The program will only apply to those with household income below $120,000, and with a maximum mortgage and incentive amount of 4-times income. As such, the impact will be contained to the lower end of the market below roughly $500,000 and, arguably, that’s the level where affordability challenges only really begin.

He provides an example here. He notes that the first-time homebuyers incentive looks great on paper, but we have to understand the reality of the markets in both the greater Vancouver area and the greater Toronto area.

One cannot find an average home of $500,000 in those locations. When we are talking about this, although the Liberal government has come out with this great plan, the biggest areas with affordability issues will not even come close to what the buyers are looking for. One will not be able to buy a house in Toronto or Vancouver because that amount is lower. I am not saying it is a good or a bad program. However, as I said, it looks like it was done on the back of a napkin, because the affordability issue has not been addressed through this new program.

Also, according to a Bloomberg report, we have to look at household debt. The report states:

Household debt in Canada, a nation generally known for moderation, has reached levels that could be qualified as excessive. Canadians owe C$2.16 trillion—which, as a share of gross domestic product, is the highest debt load in the Group of Seven economies.

It continues:

Until recently, Canada had been lauded as a bastion of sound financial management. The country of 37 million emerged relatively unscathed from the global financial crisis, thanks in large part to the strength of its banks. But the extended run of low interest rates that followed sparked a boom in borrowing, with the ratio of debt to disposable income rising to a record 174 percent in the fourth quarter, from 148 percent a decade earlier.

It further says:

Households are feeling the strain. The debt service ratio—a measure of how much disposable income goes to principal and interest payments—climbed to 14.9 percent in the fourth quarter, almost matching the 2007 record high. A total of 31,900 Canadians filed for insolvency in the three months through December, the most since 2010. Credit growth is running at its slowest annual pace since 1983.

That takes us back to the deficit. That is why I wanted to talk about where Canadians are at: what they actually have, what their own credits and debits are, what they have as a bankroll and what they have for savings. We have a Canadian Prime Minister who is now spending more per person, inflation-adjusted, and has accumulated more debt per person than any other prime minister outside of a world war or recession. We are talking about good fiscal times and extraordinary spending.

Why should this concern us? With increased debt load, there are fewer resources available to provide the programs Canadians need. The final result are financial burdens on future generations, generations that are having increased debt loads due to things like housing, education and, actually, the carbon tax. People need to go to the grocery store and put gas in their tanks, although everything costs more.

This is a generation that has less money to save and less money to invest in the future. Why? We now have a government that is going to continue to spend, spend, spend, so the debt load at home continues to get larger, and the debt load here at the Government of Canada continues to get larger. This brings me back to my original quote indicating that, under the current government, the deficit is projected to increase to over $100 billion.

It also brings me to the data that I have been looking at in different magazines, looking at the growth of the total industry and the goods industry. At the beginning of the government's mandate, we continued to see increased growth in the GDP, growth that started under the former Conservative government. According to data received and published, we have seen an ever-growing decline in the goods industry. By looking at those charts, we can see that we were going up and in the last year and a half to two years, we are beginning to go down, climbing down to lower rates.

As Kevin Page states:

Output in the goods sector has declined over the past year due to weakness in mining and manufacturing. Business investment is falling. Both the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund recently raised alarm over rising uncertainty due to trade tensions, the potential for financial market corrections and geopolitical issues. Projected growth rates in the Budget for 2019 (GDP up 1.8 per cent) look strong given the weakness in the latest GDP estimates. Projections for future sales in the Bank of Canada business outlook survey have flatlined.

This is the part where we must be concerned. We are talking about debt loads at home continuing to increase and the government continuing to have increased debt loads as well. How can people prepare themselves for the future?

I always state when I am in this House that I am a proud mother of five. I am very concerned about their future, as I know that the government has no problem just continuing to throw the debt load on top of that. That is why I want to finish off with a quote that I found from Kevin Page, who quotes the writer Stephen King: “There is no harm in hoping for the best as long as you're prepared for the worst.” I feel that the government has not prepared Canada's economy and it has not prepared our future generations for what it has left behind.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would disagree with the member's closing remarks. The government has done exceptionally well in preparing, going forward. The numbers speak for themselves, with well over 900,000 new jobs in the last three and a half years by working with Canadians from every region of the country. We have seen exceptional growth in many different areas.

What I find interesting is how the Conservatives try to give the impression that they know how to manage deficits. They are very critical of the current government's deficit. Could the member explain to Canadians why it is that Stephen Harper, when he was the prime minister, actually accumulated $150 billion-plus in debt? That is to keep in mind that when he as prime minister inherited the books of Canada, he actually inherited a multi-billion dollar surplus. The so-called fictitious balance that the Conservatives say they ended his 10 years with was really non-existent.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was really proud last week. I joined a group from LSTAR and from CREA, and we went down to Toledo, Ohio, where we saw the impact of the global economic downturn in the number of houses that were lost in those areas of Toledo, Ohio and in the Detroit area.

We were fortunate enough to have great leadership, and great policies when it came to our banks, to move forward. Part of that was called “stimulus spending”. The stimulus spending was put forward through recreation and through the building Canada fund and a variety of things and partnerships with the provinces. We were able to get things done. We were able to keep people employed. I was fortunate to be in an office working with those people who had become unemployed, looking at opportunities for us. We put together sound policies. We put forward sound programs that would help Canadians through this crisis. We were doing it the right way, yet these people are just spending, spending and spending.

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

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank my friend and colleague from Elgin—Middlesex—London. I always appreciate her comments in the House of Commons. Regardless of whether I agree with the positions of the Conservative Party, I really appreciate her enthusiasm.

I have been talking a lot about salmon and the impact that the closures of the chinook salmon are having on British Columbians. This should not be a partisan issue. All parties should be making this a priority, that we invest in enhancement, restoration and habitat protection and that we invest in bringing back our salmon to abundance.

We know that question period is a very important place for parties to identify their priorities, especially the official opposition. It is April 30, 2019. This Parliament has been sitting for over three and a half years and the Conservative Party has not asked one question on Pacific salmon, not one question. This is despite having nine MPs from British Columbia, and 97 MPs. The Conservatives have not prioritized this.

I ask my colleague to urge her party to join the NDP in making salmon a priority and putting it as a priority in question period for her party as soon as possible, because this is an urgent situation. I know that the Conservatives have different concerns. They do not support the carbon tax. They have had 700 questions on the carbon tax and over 350 questions on SNC-Lavalin and the scandal that is taking place there. We understand that each party has its priorities, but I am urging the member and her party to make salmon a priority, rise in the House of Commons in question period and take on the government to release resources immediately to the fishers who are impacted, and support our salmon.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am a proud resident on the Great Lakes, so I understand the importance of restoration and I understand the importance of keeping our environment clean. I take the member's great concern into consideration. I will be sure to share that when we speak in caucus.

We are very fortunate because I am part of a caucus where we actually talk, where we actually sit up in caucus and talk about what we are thinking. We do not have to always agree. At the end of the day, when our leader is speaking, he is speaking for all of us because it is where we are all beginning to agree on different things. It is really interesting. I am part of a caucus that I am very proud of. I will be sure to bring that forward.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Essex, Automotive Industry; the hon. member for Windsor West, Statistics Canada; the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona, The Environment.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to lend my support to budget 2019 as a road map to a more prosperous and equitable future for our communities. Three years ago, I stood in the House and spoke about the potential in budget 2016, that it would provide Canadians the tools they need to innovate and to build a stronger, healthier and greener Canada.

Since 2016, Canadians have used tools such as tax cuts for the middle class, infrastructure spending and the Canada child benefit to stimulate growth, helping to create over 950,000 jobs. In fact, Guelph now has the lowest unemployment in Canada, at 1.9%. In 2018, we reduced our projected emissions for 2030 by an additional 21 million tonnes since last year, while still growing the Canadian economy and lifting 800,000 people out of poverty, including many seniors, three years ahead of schedule.

These are the results Canadians voted for in 2015, but for the people of Guelph and me, we know that better is always possible. Despite job growth and increased opportunity for young people, home ownership for many residents still remains out of reach. As well, there is a large body of politicians who still cast doubt on climate change while the majority of Canadians are demanding action.

Budget 2019 is our plan to move forward and build on the gains made over the last three years. Infrastructure is the backbone of any successful nation and that is why, beginning with our first budget, we began investing in infrastructure. Currently, the government has a plan in place that is investing more than $180 billion over 12 years to build infrastructure in our communities, approving more than 33,000 infrastructure projects from coast to coast to coast.

We have heard from Canadians. They agree overwhelmingly that they want their municipalities to continue to build their communities. Because many municipalities across Canada continue to face serious infrastructure deficits, budget 2019 will provide municipalities with a one-time transfer of $2.2 billion through the federal gas tax fund to address priorities in municipalities and in first nation communities. These investments in our communities will help to build community centres, roads, schools, play structures and more, but also spur the creation of jobs, in fact thousands of jobs in construction. We are hoping the Province of Ontario will return to collaborating as a key partner in investing in our community.

Canadians who work hard and contribute to the Canadian society deserve to retire in dignity. Since 2015, we have improved the old age security benefit, the guaranteed income supplement, as well as the Canada pension plan. Enhancing the Canada pension plan, starting in 2019, will provide more money for Canadians when they retire. This translates into an increase in the current maximum retirement benefit of more than $7,000 per year, from $13,610 to almost $21,000 per year.

However, seniors are still struggling with the rising costs of prescription medication. Canadians pay some of the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. Brand-name medicines cost on average 20% more in Canada than they do in other advanced economies. Seniors living on a fixed income are some of the most vulnerable when these costs rise.

The first step we will take is to provide Health Canada with $35 million over four years, starting in 2019-20, to establish a Canadian drug agency transition office to support the development of this vision. In order to address rare diseases, budget 2019 proposes to invest up to $1 billion over two years, starting in 2022-23, with up to $500 million per year ongoing, to help Canadians with rare diseases get the drugs they need.

I am surprised that I have to say this, but climate change is real. When we look at the Ottawa River tonight, we see the banks overflowing with water. We see climate change happening across the Prairies with droughts. We see extreme weather in different parts of Canada, showing that things are changing. Denying this will only make it harder and harder to address. Thankfully, we have taken action. In budget 2018, we reduced our projected emissions for 2030 by an additional 21 million tonnes, and we are just starting to get going.

Last week I participated in a student-run town hall on climate change. The message was clear. Canadian youth want their leaders to act swiftly to curb the effects of climate change. Almost every student in the gymnasium who I spoke with said that we were not doing enough and we were not doing it fast enough.

Budget 2019 will help advance our climate change objectives by investing in energy efficient retrofits. We are investing $1.01 billion to increase energy efficiency in residential, commercial and multi-unit buildings. This program was just announced, with links, this afternoon. Applications are being accepted up until May 13. Of this $1 billion, $300 million will go to support home energy retrofits to help replace furnaces and install renewable energy technology through the community eco-efficiency acceleration initiative. That is available now.

We will set aside another $300 million to provide financing for affordable housing developments to improve their energy efficiency in new and existing housing. That will help to support not only onsite energy generation, but reduce the cost of energy that is used in the housing units.

A further investment of $350 million will provide municipalities and non-profit community organizations with financing and grants to retrofit and improve the energy efficiency of large community buildings in Canadian municipalities, both large and small.

Since Ontario has opted out of the climate change incentives, these funds will be directly available to our communities via the Canadian Federation of Municipalities. The money collected will be returned to municipalities and businesses.

Emissions from vehicles are also a principal source of pollution in our air. As co-chair of the auto caucus, we are looking at this with respect to the car of the future.

To encourage more Canadians to buy zero-emission vehicles, budget 2019 proposes $300 million over three years to introduce a new federal purchase incentive of up to $5,000 for electric battery or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, with a manufacturer's suggested retail price of less than $45,000. That will impact 27 models that are currently available, but it also gives a signal to manufacturers that this is the threshold that our programs operate under so they can look at ways to get their vehicles under that cost.

As well, businesses purchasing EV or hybrid vehicles will be able to fully write-off the cost in the first year. The goal is to achieve 10% EV or hybrid purchases in the next two years. The proposed growth under the former incentive program the Ontario government was to go from 1% EV vehicles to 4%. As soon as that incentive was removed, we went down to 1% again. We want to recover and grow that up to 10% of EV purchases over the next two years.

Electric vehicles face a major obstacle though. Recharging stations are difficult to find sometimes when away from home. I have heard this in my community and from other EV owners. To correct this and expand the network of zero-emission vehicle charging stations, budget 2019 proposes to build on previous investments by providing Natural Resources Canada with $130 million over five years. This investment will help deploy new recharging stations in workplaces, public parking spots, commercial and multi-unit residential buildings as well as in remote locations.

This year we have brought to an end the days of free pollution. For provinces that do not have a plan in place, we have implemented a plan across the country that will balance not only reducing the cost to families through incentives going back, but also putting a price on pollution.

While I wish I could speak to every initiative in budget 2019, such as skills training, advancing reconciliation and having lifted 850,000 people out of poverty, I can see my time is just about at an end.

This budget is going to continue the work we began in 2015 by creating a more inclusive, a more sustainable and a prosperous country for all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, in 2015, the Liberals made a campaign commitment and expressed distress over what they called large omnibus budget legislation.

On the subject of immigration and the division of the Department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs, which will not give us an opportunity to talk to affected stakeholders because of how the Liberals have presented this bill, did my colleague commit to that platform and the omnibus legislation? How will he explain this to his constituents now that he has clearly broken a promise?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the budget bill in front of us is about numbers. It is about the business plan for Canada. It looks at all aspects of operating the country, including the increase we have seen in asylum seekers, which requires more funding from us to support provinces and municipalities with respect to immigration. When we look at what we are doing in the budget, it all comes down to the dollars needed to run effective programs to support the changing needs of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite said that climate change is real, and the flooding that is occurring across the country right now is a concrete example of that.

For weeks and even months now, young people have been taking to the streets of Montreal every Friday to send a clear message to the federal and provincial governments. Scientists have clearly stated that the federal government still does not have a comprehensive plan for meeting the greenhouse gas reduction targets.

Recent reports from Environment and Climate Change Canada have confirmed that our additional production has reached 66 megatonnes. Rather than reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, we are producing more greenhouse gases. We will not meet the Paris targets until 2230. We will be 200 years late in meeting the target that we set to limit climate warming to 1.5°C. We do not have a comprehensive plan. The Liberals claim to be champions of the environment, but there is no legislation.

On February 10, people in my riding worked on proposals. For example, they proposed that the government stop subsidizing the fossil fuel industry. In the most recent budget, the government allocated $3.3 billion for subsidies for the fossil fuel and oil industries. It is written in black and white in the budget tabled on March 19.

My constituents asked for product labels to indicate their environmental impact and to make recycling easier. They called on the government to set a goal to transition to a fully circular economy by 2050 and to create a national mandatory system for assessing building energy efficiency. I have many more examples the government could use if it is in need of inspiration. My constituents made a number of proposals that could help reduce GHGs.

The government is dragging its feet. I hope it will respond to this and give hope to young Canadians.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member's detailed question almost bordered on a speech. She has touched on points that are important for the youth across Canada. We are seeing protests. We know there is anxiety. People want change and they want it now.

As we build our pan-Canadian network of climate change programs, we have been able to reduce our emissions, during a time of economic growth, by about 21 million tonnes at the same time. We are also looking at the subsidies and we have a plan to phase them out. In fact, it is in the budget. Five out of seven subsidies will be removed and two out of seven are currently being reviewed by CRA.

We know we have to get off coal, we have to get off subsidy and we have to move ahead with the plan. We have a 50-point plan and it is working.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-97, the first budget implementation act for 2019.

First, this was a phenomenal budget for my constituents in Brampton North and for all Canadians. It would take far more than 10 minutes to talk about all of its strengths, but I will highlight some of its biggest wins for Brampton in the time I have been given.

In a city as fast growing as Brampton, infrastructure spending is especially critical. More Bramptonians make use of our roads and public transit system every day. Brampton Transit saw its ridership grow by 14% last year, with over 30 million total rides, making it the fastest-growing transit system in Canada. Budget 2019 embraces and invests in that growth.

A one-time transfer directly to municipalities will see the City of Brampton receive over $16.6 million in additional infrastructure spending. The region of Peel, which Brampton is in, is receiving a further $41 million through this transfer. This is money that can go toward improvements to our roads and highways. It can buy new buses, in addition to the 22 buses our government has already funded, or renovate transit hubs. It can make critical repairs to our water and waste water system. It can go toward new sports or cultural centres as well.

This funding is a big deal for Brampton, and I am thrilled it was in our budget.

However, let us not forget why this money is so important. Our government has billions of dollars on the table for the Province of Ontario through our investing in Canada infrastructure program, and $8.3 billion are available for public transit alone. Can my city apply directly to the federal government for funding? No, it cannot. For that funding to be available, the provincial government needs to come to the table. It is Premier Ford's responsibility to open up funding streams to be a full partner and get these projects going.

I have had many meetings with my city councillors, regional councillors and the mayor of Brampton. We all seem to agree that these projects cannot open up soon enough. However, it seems that Doug Ford does not want to invest, does not want to create jobs. Time is running out. The summer construction season is practically under way. Unions, trade associations and contractors are speaking up. They are concerned they will not have any work this summer.

While the province refuses to let cities apply for public transit funding, refuses to let them apply for any infrastructure funding, billions of dollars are being left on the table, as are the jobs and projects that come with it.

However, perhaps I am focusing too much on public transit funding. After all, looking at the Ontario transit plan, it does not look like Premier Ford intends for Brampton to receive any of it. A $28.5 billion transit line for downtown Toronto will take up every drop of infrastructure funding from multiple levels of government and then some, while leaving my city and my constituents out in the cold.

However, the municipal infrastructure funding is far from the only important part of budget 2019 for Brampton North.

If there is one thing my constituents have wanted in Brampton for a very long time, it is a university. Much like our government, we are a city that strongly believes in the value of learning and access to a good education. Our government's changes to make post-secondary education more affordable have been well received.

Within our first year of government, we increased Canada student grants by 50%. We ensured that graduates were not required to start making payments on their loan until they were earning $25,000 a year. We have more than doubled the number of Canada summer jobs so more students can get valuable work experience and save money for tuition or living costs.

Changes proposed in budget 2019, which are included in Bill C-97, will extend the interest-free period on student loans by six months, giving students room to breathe following graduation.

Investing in all levels of education, including post-secondary education, is essential to ensuring young people get the skills, training and opportunities they need to succeed in the workforce, now and well into the future. Our government understands that. My constituents understand that. I am proud that many of them joined in the province-wide walkout on April 4 to protest Premier Ford's education system changes. While we are making the six-month period interest-free, Premier Ford has taken away that period completely.

This is why so many of my constituents were devastated when one of the first things the newly elected Conservative provincial government did was cut the funding for the downtown Ryerson University campus. The cuts were unexpected and they blew a hole in Brampton's vision for an economic revitalization of our downtown core. They were universally condemned by my community.

I recall the president of Brampton's board of trade commenting that the move to cut funding did not inspire confidence in the government's decision-making—

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

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I do wish my friend well if she has future plans of pursuing a seat at Queen's Park, but the topic we are supposed to be addressing is the federal budget. I know there is a lot in there that the government probably does not want to talk about, but I wonder if you could call the member to order and encourage her to address the issue before the House at the moment.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I remind the hon. member that we are discussing the federal budget, not the provincial budget. I will let her continue. I am sure she is coming around to the federal government, so I will leave it to her to bring it back.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is completely relevant. I am contrasting what happens when there is a government with a vision that makes cuts and a government that invests in growth.

After that university cancellation announcement, both I and my fellow Brampton MPs spent months speaking with Ryerson and with my city and with provincial counterparts. We advocated tirelessly to our colleagues, including the hon. Minister of Finance, to ensure that Brampton's interests were being heard, even if the province was not listening.

It worked. Included in budget 2019 was an $80 million investment over four years to support three or more cybersecurity networks across Canada, which are affiliated with a post-secondary institution. Ryerson's cybersecure catalyst was mentioned by name, and I believe it will be a strong contender for the funding. We are expecting to make announcements in the coming months.

Another common issue constituents raise with me is the cost of pharmaceutical drugs. As our government has constantly said, we firmly believe that no Canadian should have to choose between paying for prescription medication or putting food on the table. While Canadians are proud of our health care system, they are still forced to make this impossible decision.

I could draw attention once again to the many cuts to health care funding that Premier Ford's government has managed to put forward in a remarkably short amount of time, but there is just too much ground to cover there and not enough time in the few minutes I have left.

In budget 2018, our government established an advisory council on the implementation of national pharmacare. After talking to Canadians from coast to coast to coast, we are awaiting its final report. However, through budget 2019, we are laying the foundation for a national program. This includes the creation of a Canadian drug agency. Together with the provinces and territories, this agency will negotiate drug prices for all Canadians, lowering costs by up to $3 billion per year. We are also putting in place a national strategy for high-cost drugs for rare diseases which will help families most in need.

Looking through this legislation and comparing it to recent events, I am convinced this budget truly has the interests of Canadians at heart. We are taking action to make their lives better in real and tangible ways. We are helping the people who need it most, not burying our heads in the sand through cuts and more cuts. We are giving people the tools they need to grow Canada's economy on their own. It is their hard work that is building an incredibly strong economy for today and laying the foundation for continued growth for years to come.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to hear the perspective of those at Queen's Park and those working hard to join them.

I want to zero in on one particular aspect of the budget, which is the investments made by the current government regarding infrastructure in Asia.

The finance minister tells us that giving money to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank to build pipelines in Asia, which is a tool for advancing Chinese foreign policy, is about demonstrating our commitment to international development and green improvements. I think he knows there are many organizations we can co-operate with internationally that are doing development, that have much better environmental and human rights standards and that do not have the same transparency problems as the AIIB. In fact, President Obama highlighted these transparency and other problems with respect to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, never mind the current ongoing problems with respect to Canada-China relations.

My constituents are wondering, and I suspect the people in Brampton are as well, why their hard-earned tax dollars are going to build infrastructure in Asia in a way that is not transparent and accountable, when at the very least we could be working with development vehicles that do not have the same problems. At best, perhaps we could be using those resources to invest and respond to the infrastructure needs we have in Canada.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my speech and on many occasions in the House, such as in question period and in the debates, we have heard time and time again about the many investments that have been made by our government. This investment will reduce the use of coal in China. However, I would like to talk about our energy and environmental policies in Canada as well. We are investing here to ensure that the concerns of Canadians with respect to climate change are heard and understood by this government. We are taking real action. We have yet to hear any ideas from the Conservatives when it comes to climate change or what they would propose instead.

I know China will benefit greatly, but so will we and the world. When growing up, I remember the smog advisories throughout almost the entire summer, day after day. Now there are none. Therefore, any initiative that is taken and any money that is invested to improve the environment is a good investment not only for Canadians, but for the whole globe.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is one important issue happening across Canada, and that is with respect to bankruptcy and insolvency. In the last election, the Liberals said they would fix that. I know the member did not mention it in her speech, but during bankruptcy protection, the first thing that happens to the majority of people is their severance and vacation pays are taken away. Then, if the company is insolvent and has to declare bankruptcy because it is in a deficit, all the pensioners lose. Therefore, this is a huge issue.

The Liberal government said that it was going to fix it. This was the last time it could try to do that in its budget and all it did was a bit of window dressing. There is nothing in it that states that pensioners would have their pensions protected either as a secured creditor or in some type of guaranteed pension fund. I want to know why this was omitted and what the government plans on doing about it.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that I have colleagues in the House, such as the Minister of Seniors, who have been working hard on this issue, and that does not stop with this budget. However, I would like to highlight some of the steps that have been taken in this budget.

We have taken a whole-of-government evidence-based approach to addressing these concerns, using all the levers that our government has at its disposal. That is why, through this legislation, we would be establishing tools to promote responsible corporate behaviour toward pensioners and better protect Canadians. These changes include allowing courts to examine executive compensation in insolvency cases to make proceedings fairer and more transparent; establishing better oversight of executive compensation and setting higher expectations for corporate behaviour by mandating shareholders' votes on approaches to compensation; and enhancing income security for Canadians with a disability by ensuring when individuals are in bankruptcy, creditors will not have access to the monies deposited and held in registered disability savings plans. These steps will help ensure that those who need the money or who have a pension will get it.

It does not stop there. We are looking at other ways and avenues to protect our pensioners.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak about the budget implementation act, 2019. While the budget acknowledges anxieties facing Canadians today, the government is failing to show a sense of urgency for addressing the underlying causes.

The budget contains misguided priorities and also includes delays and a lack of funding for serious issues, such as climate change, child care and universal prescription drug coverage. With the last budget of its mandate, the Liberal government has failed to take the bold actions Canadians want to build a more sustainable and equitable future and a better Canada.

Canadians, particularly young Canadians, are deeply worried about climate change. Last month, high school students in Nelson joined thousands from across the country and the world, who had been walking out of class to demand stronger action on climate change. I also received passionate letters from grades 5 and 6 Ktunaxa students. They are worried about polar bears and the environment. I have special concern for my granddaughter Lalita, who at times worries if her generation will have a future at all.

The IPCC says we have less than 12 years to act to avert climate catastrophe and a recent report found Canada was warming at twice the global average. Bold, urgent action is needed. However, the budget continues to delay phasing out fossil fuel subsidies that jeopardize our ability to transition to a green economy before it is too late. It proposes simply to study subsidies pointing to a peer review process announced last June.

Earlier this month, the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development found the government's attempts to study fossil fuel subsidies had been flawed. Her audits found the government had failed to do a fulsome inventory of subsidies and did not consider long-term environmental and social impacts on an equal basis with economic factors.

The time is now to end fossil fuel subsidies and begin the shift to renewable energy, public transit and energy efficiency. That should not, however, include handouts to hugely profitable corporations such as Loblaws. Actions such as that show the government is out of touch and failing to support Canada's small businesses and workers in the transition to a low-carbon economy.

As the NDP's critic for national parks, I am also disappointed to see no funding has been allocated to protect Parks Canada's assets from climate change despite a recent report commissioned by the agency estimating this would cost up to $3.3 billion. In fact, it seems Parks Canada has lost $15 million from its budget, which was returned to the fiscal framework after the cancellation of the Icefields Trail project instead of being allocated to other urgent park priorities, like adaptation.

Canadians are also deeply anxious about affordability issues. They are grappling with sky-high housing costs in a time of stagnant wages and precarious work. The dream of owning a home and being able to retire feel like they are slipping out of reach for many.

The budget includes measures targeting millennials who want to buy their first home, but these measures are misguided. One proposal is to increase the amount first-time homebuyers can borrow from their registered retirement savings plans to $35,000. However, Abacus Data reports its research found only 36% of millennials even had an RRSP. Many young Canadians are struggling to save for a home or their retirement because of high student debt and lack of affordable child care. The budget does little to address these issues.

In British Columbia, the $10-a-day child care pilot project introduced by the NDP government has been a game-changer for the families selected to participate, including one of my former staff members in Nelson. There have been media reports of families saving around $1,000 a month or more on child care under that program.

The budget acknowledges that the lack of affordable child care is putting education, employment and home ownership out of reach for parents, particularly mothers. Despite this, the 2019 budget provides no new funding to make affordable child care a reality for more families.

One of my staff members in Ottawa spends more than a third of her take-home pay on day care for her toddler, but considers herself lucky because she was able to secure a licensed spot. Like most of the country, in my riding of Kootenay—Columbia, there is a shortage of licensed child care spots and parents sign up for wait-lists before their children are even born.

The budget acknowledges that women's participation in the workforce has stalled since the early 2000s and researchers cite access to quality, affordable child care as an important factor in encouraging women's attachment to the workforce.

Last month the Cranbrook Boys and Girls Club announced it was closing its licensed child care program for three-year-olds to five-year-olds because it had been unable to recruit qualified staff.

Recruitment and retention of early childhood educators is a major problem in Canada due to the low wages in this female dominated field. However, the federal government is not taking urgent action to address this issue.

Meanwhile, Sarah, a pharmacist in Kimberley, is leading an effort to get more after school care programs running in town. She conducted a survey that found that many local mothers are unable to work because of the lack of after school care or their employment options are extremely limited due to school hours.

Almost two decades ago, scholar Rianne Mahon termed the quest for universal child care the never-ending story. The Minister of Families, Children and Social Development has called it a long-term vision. Frankly, mothers are done listening to this story. An NDP budget would make funding universal, high-quality, affordable child care a priority, because it is good for families, for children and for the economy.

I was also disappointed to see that the budget would take the half-measure of reducing interest rates on student loans instead of eliminating interest entirely. Last month I wrote to the Minister of Finance and theMinister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour to request that they follow B.C.'s lead. It stopped charging interest on provincial student loans this February.

Too many Canadians of all ages are also anxious about how they will afford the medications they need, and the health of our nation is suffering. My constituency offices have heard stories of people taking half doses of their medications, risking anaphylactic reactions instead of purchasing EpiPens or waiting until payday to fill prescriptions.

Instead of acting with a sense of urgency to establish a universal, comprehensive public pharmacare program that would lower drug costs and cover everyone, the budget would delay this important work. The budget proposes funding over four years for the establishment of a new drug agency while not taking steps to deal with inadequate and unequal coverage across the country. It would also delay funding for those living with rare diseases until 2022.

Studies show that pharmacare would save Canada money and improve health outcomes, and most Canadians want us to fill this critical gap in our medicare system. The time for talk and study is over; it is now time to act. Canadians need to be able to use their health care cards, not their credit cards, when picking up their prescription medications.

The NDP has a plan to ensure that pharmacare is available for all by 2020, and I encourage the Liberal government to take a serious look at what can happen if it is truly committed to a better Canada.

Another anxiety many retirees and workers have is whether the pensions they have earned from years of hard work will be secure and not stolen if their company goes bankrupt, as happened with Sears Canada.

Instead of moving forward with overdue changes to bankruptcy laws to protect workers and pensioners, as suggested by my colleague, the member for Hamilton Mountain, the budget asks them to rely on the good faith of corporate executives. This is out of touch with the experience of retirees who saw their pensions cut while executives got bonuses and shareholders received dividend payments. Pensions are deferred wages and need to be given super-priority status in bankruptcies.

The budget does contain some positive measures, such as increasing federal investments in broadband and setting a target for achieving high-speed Internet connectivity across the country by 2030.

In February, I gave a speech in Parliament about the digital divide between rural and urban Canada and urged the government to make funding this issue a priority in the budget. I am pleased to see that the government is acting on this issue, but 2030 does not show urgency. Rural cellphone coverage and the affordability of cell and Internet service also remain pressing concerns for Canadians.

I am also pleased to see a top-up of the federal gas tax fund this year, which will lead to an estimated $280 million in extra funding for local governments in B.C. and funding for the green municipal fund to support energy efficiency initiatives.

Every year I ask my constituents whether their lives are better, worse, or the same six months after a federal budget. While the government has been quick to bail out corporations like SNC-Lavalin or Kinder Morgan, it continues to tell ordinary Canadians to wait for solutions to their problems. Unfortunately, there is very little in this budget that will benefit my constituents, while adding $19.8 billion in debt for our children and grandchildren to pay off. An NDP budget would make different choices and put people and the planet at the centre of government policies.

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

Mr. Speaker, many in this House will not be surprised that I followed the NDP's pronouncements on housing with a great deal of interest. I would like to ask the member to comment on a housing policy announced in B.C. during the recent by-election that would effectively double the Stephen Harper tax credit for first-time homebuyers. It would see someone who can afford a $1.6-million house, which is the average price in Vancouver, who can afford a down payment of close to $350,000 and who can carry a mortgage of $1.25 million get a cheque for $750 six months after the house closed. When Harper introduced this tax credit, Jack Layton called it a “dribbling”, pathetic little tax credit that would do nothing for homelessness or the home ownership crisis.

Why have you doubled down on a failed Stephen Harper policy? Why are you sending cheques of $750 to millionaires?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I want to remind hon. members that when they are referring to other members, they have to go through the Speaker. I want to assure hon. members that the Speaker is not doing any of the stuff he was accused of by the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York.

The hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia.

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

Mr. Speaker, if my colleague across the floor had kept up to date with the proposals we were putting forward to benefit housing and to ensure affordable housing for the future, while at the same time improving what is happening with the environment, he would have noticed that recently we announced that we want to restore the energy retrofit program and increase the energy retrofit program for houses across Canada to make them more efficient, make them last longer and make them more desirable places to live.

Our platform is evolving. We are looking to have half a million affordable homes in place in the relatively near future. We know it can be done, because just after the war, when the government actually was serious about providing affordable housing, it created 350,000 war time houses that people still live in across the country. These were small houses but affordable houses built over the period of about two years. We know that if the government is serious about affordable housing, rather than just saying nice words about affordable housing, we can benefit hundreds of thousands of Canadians going forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, feeding into this discussion about affordability and helping people access home ownership, I wonder if my colleague could share his party's perspective on the issue of the mortgage stress test. Some of the new policies the government has brought in are maybe geared to respond to situations in some of Canada's big urban centres, but in reality, they make home ownership much less accessible for Canadians who really could afford to invest in home ownership themselves but have a harder time doing so as a result of policies the current government brought in on the regulatory side. It would not cost anything for the government to revisit those policies. It is simply a matter of trying to get the government out of the way of people who should be able to afford and invest in their homes to allow them to do that. I am curious about whether my colleague has thoughts on ways we can undo some of the damage the government has done in that respect.

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

Mr. Speaker, the damage has to be shared between the Conservatives and the Liberals, because it was the Conservatives who reduced the period for mortgages to 25 years, which makes it much more difficult, particularly for young people, to qualify. We would like to see the mortgage period increased to at least 30 years, which would then allow more people to get into the market and afford their mortgages. Some of those problems actually started with the Harper Conservative government, and they have been exacerbated by some of the policies of the Liberal government.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, nearly four years ago, our government was elected with a commitment to invest in the things that matter most to Canadians, including housing affordability for young people; creating good, well-paying jobs; support for seniors and families; and protecting the environment. In March, our government tabled budget 2019, which would make important investments to deliver on this commitment to improve the quality of life for all Canadians and to continue to build on the work we have done over the last four years.

I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-97, the budget implementation act.

I have heard concerns from many of my constituents in Oakville North—Burlington, one of the most expensive housing markets in the country, about affordability and the accessibility of the housing market to first-time homebuyers. To help make home ownership more affordable for first-time buyers, budget 2019 proposes to introduce a first-time homebuyer incentive, which would create a fund of $1.25 billion that would be available to eligible first-time homebuyers with household incomes of under $120,000 per year. Budget 2019 would also provide first-time homebuyers with greater access to their RRSP savings to buy a home by increasing the withdrawal limit to $35,000.

Our government understands that the job market is changing rapidly. Many Canadians now need to develop new skills mid-career in order to pivot to a new career path. That is why budget 2019 proposes to invest more than $1.7 billion over five years in Canada's first-ever Canada training benefit. The new benefit would include two key components: introducing a credit to help Canadians with the cost of training fees, and creating an EI training support benefit that would provide workers with the flexibility to train when it worked best for them.

We would also lower the interest rate on all Canada student loans, changing the current federal student financial assistance regime so that student loans would not accumulate any interest during the six-month grace period after a student left school.

Recently I had the opportunity to visit Niagara College, in Welland, to talk to faculty and staff about these measures, and they thanked me for our government's work to support students, including our initiatives in budget 2018 to support young people who choose skilled trades.

In early March, the Advisory Council on the Implementation of National Pharmacare released its interim report. Budget 2019 affirms the government's commitment to work towards the three recommendations made by the council: the creation of a Canada drug agency, which would make prescription drugs more affordable for more Canadians; the development of a comprehensive, evidence-based list of prescribed drugs to harmonize coverage across Canada; and an investment in data on prescription drugs. Budget 2019 would provide Health Canada with $35 million over four years to support the development of this vision. In a measure being applauded by health care advocates, the budget would also invest up to $1 billion over two years to help Canadians with rare diseases access the drugs they need.

In 1980, Terry Fox united this country with a vision to one day find a cure for cancer. When Terry had to stop his Marathon of Hope, he said, “I’m not going to give up. But I might not make it...if I don’t, the Marathon of Hope better continue”.

Budget 2019 would help to realize Terry's dream by allocating $150 million towards the Marathon of Hope Cancer Centres Network. The federal government would collaborate with the Terry Fox Research Institute and its partners, which are providing matching funding, to link universities and hospitals across Canada to advance the principles of precision medicine and to transform how cancer research is done not only in Canada but around the world.

This particular investment is one that is close to my heart, and I want to thank Dr. Victor Ling, from the Terry Fox Research Institute; the Terry Fox Foundation chair, Bill Pristanski; and Terry Foxers across Canada for their advocacy and efforts to educate members of Parliament on this important investment.

Our seniors have shaped our country in countless ways, and after a lifetime of hard work, they deserve to have confidence in their retirement. Budget 2019 proposes new measures to better protect workplace pensions in the event that an employer goes bankrupt.

We are also allocating an additional $100 million over five years for the new horizons for seniors program. I know what an impact this program has for seniors in my riding at places like Tansley United Church and Oak Park Neighbourhood Centre, as it helps fund programming that promotes seniors' participation and inclusion in their communities.

I am proud to represent a community where so many of my constituents, in addition to their advocacy on environmental issues, make environmentally conscious choices in their day-to-day lives, such as reducing their use of plastics or driving zero-emission vehicles.

We know that more Canadians are choosing to drive zero-emission vehicles as an increasing number of models become available and prices decline. Regrettably, last year the Government of Ontario cancelled the electric and hydrogen vehicle incentive program, and a number of my constituents reached out to me to share their disappointment and frustration.

Fortunately, our government is taking action and has proposed strategic investments to help more Canadians choose zero-emission vehicles, including $300 million over three years to introduce a new federal purchase incentive of up to $5,000 for electric battery or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles with a retail price of less than $45,000.

As of April l, it is no longer free to pollute anywhere in Canada. Our government recognizes that we need to act now to ensure that our children and grandchildren have clean air to breathe, that Canada has a strong and healthy economy, that we make Canadians' health and safety our number one priority.

Pricing pollution is the least costly way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and foster clean innovation. We will return all the revenue from a price on pollution to the provinces those revenues come from, with 90% going directly to families through a climate action incentive. In 2019, the average family of four in Ontario will receive $307 through the climate action incentive, while a single individual will receive $154.

The other 10% of revenues from the price on pollution will go towards helping small and medium-sized businesses, schools, hospitals, indigenous peoples, and communities improve their energy efficiency.

We are also making a one-time payment to municipalities through a municipal infrastructure top-up that will see Halton Region receive $16 million; Oakville, $5.9 million; and Burlington, $5.3 million. This money will go directly to support local infrastructure projects, such as public transit, disaster mitigation and adaptation projects, community centres and active transportation infrastructure.

As a former municipal councillor, I know that these funds will be a game-changer for our communities.

We are creating Canada's first national dementia strategy, with an investment of $50 million over five years. We are creating a pan-Canadian database for organ donation and transportation. We are investing in a pan-Canadian suicide prevention service, working with experienced and dedicated partners.

Diversity and inclusion are cornerstones of Canadian identity and something that all Canadians can be proud of. At the same time, recent tragic events in Canada and abroad have shown that no community is immune to the effects of hateful rhetoric. Around the world, ultra-nationalist movements have emerged, and in Canada those groups are unfairly targeting new Canadians, racialized individuals and religious minorities, threatening the peace, security and civility of the communities we call home. That is why this year's federal budget proposes to provide $45 million over three years to support the creation of a new anti-racism strategy. Its key purpose will be to find ways to counter racism in its various forms, with a strong focus on community-based projects.

The threat of climate change has become more tangible for Canadians as we see more severe, more frequent and more costly natural disasters, such as wildfires and flooding. One need look no further than the flooding in my community of Burlington a few years ago and the current flooding taking place here in Ottawa and Quebec and New Brunswick to know the devastation these natural disasters bring.

While Conservatives are making short-sighted decisions like the one in Ontario to cut funding by 50% to conservation authorities for flood forecasting and natural hazards management, we are investing $151 million over five years and $9 million per year ongoing to improve emergency management in Canada. These investments will enhance our understanding of the nature of risks posed by floods, wildfires and earthquakes. They will also help in assessing the condition and resilience of Canada's critical infrastructure.

There are many more investments in budget 2019, but I do not have time to outline them all. I am proud of the investments we are making to improve the lives of Canadians, and I know that all Canadians can be proud of them as well.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will go back to the member's introductory remarks about first-time homebuyers and some of the measures introduced in the first part of the budget, or chapter 1, as I call it.

With regard to the RSP measure, only about 8.5% of Canadians max out their RSP. It is a very small group of people, usually earning a very good income, who can make a maximum contribution to their RSP and will then be able to use it in a buy-back scheme to purchase their home. This will have a very tiny impact for first-time homebuyers.

The member talked about the shared equity mortgages as some great solution to the affordability problem for first-time homebuyers and for young people especially. However, the average price of a home in Toronto is about $780,000, and this program that the government is proposing caps out at $480,000.

The B-20 stress test has punished first-time homebuyers more than any other regulatory policy of this government. There is no easy way to fix this.

How can the member support a policy that has reduced mortgages starts young people by 20%?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I purchased my first home with money that was in an RRSP. My 29-year-old son recently purchased a home; he had been contributing to an RRSP since he started working and was able to use that money as a down payment on his home, so there are young people who are taking advantage of it now. It expands it; it is not the only solution.

I will be quite honest. I worked in commercial mortgage financing for many years, and the stress test is an important tool to ensure that people do not get mortgages that are more than they can afford. We certainly do not want to see a situation like the one in United States, where people were over-mortgaged and were losing their homes. Especially in places like my communities of Oakville, Burlington and Halton, where prices are so high, we need to ensure that people can afford their homes.

I would not support getting rid of the stress test. In fact, I think it is a very important measure that we brought in to ensure that people can stay in their homes once they have purchased them.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, in the member's speech she mentioned pensions. I am wondering what happened to the promise the Liberals made in 2015 that they would fix the Bankruptcy Act.

I understand they were going to do something last year. Now they say they are going to do it this year. They mentioned in the budget that they have some plans, but the experts have told us that this is nothing. This is window dressing.

We have many steelworkers here today and for the next couple of weeks who want to know why nothing happened under the Bankruptcy Act when pensions have been taken. Pensions of the people at Sears have been taken. The workers do not get any termination pay. They get no severance pay and no vacation pay. Their health benefits are gone. Nothing has been mentioned about how the government is going to fix it.

Liberals are coming out with a little window dressing. We want to know why the Liberal government has not committed to fixing the Bankruptcy Act to stop this pension theft.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the very first meetings I had when I was elected was with a Sears pensioner who explained the situation that he foresaw happening with Sears. I was part of a group, along with the members for Hamilton, Burlington and Oakville, that has met a number of times. As the member knows, it is not only the federal government that is involved with the problems with the bankruptcies of these companies. It is also provincial.

The Minister of Finance has done a good job of making some changes to pensions to ensure they are protected, because these are people who have relied on their pension and in particular their defined benefits to be able to—

[An hon. member]

It's a federal law.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is hard to speak when someone is interrupting.

We have made good changes with what is happening with pensions and we look forward to supporting pensioners going forward.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will remind members that whenever someone has the floor, whether it is speaking on the debate or whether asking or answering questions, the person should be getting the respect of the House, and if other people have things to say or comment on, then they should wait until it is time for questions and comments or their turn to debate.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to rise to speak to the perspectives and concerns of my constituents, as well as in my role as the shadow minister for transportation, regarding Bill C-97, which is another omnibus bill proposed by the current Liberal government.

I want to begin by commending my hon. colleague, the member for Carleton, for his thoughtful and comprehensive response to the budget. As he so aptly noted, this budget is a string of broken promises and perhaps the most expensive cover-up in history. The Prime Minister and his government are attempting to change the channel on the SNC-Lavalin affair and are using billions of taxpayer dollars to make this happen.

As we all know, the Liberal Party ran on the promise of balancing the budget in 2019. It is a promise made, and it is a promise broken to the tune of $19.8 billion.

For years now, the member for Carleton has repeatedly asked a simple question of the finance minister: When will the budget be balanced? Every time, the finance minister has refused to answer. Despite the minister's refusal, we do know that there is no plan to balance the budget before 2040, if even then. By 2040, the Liberals' current plan would see $271 billion added to our debt. The government has left us with nothing in our back pocket. The Liberals have spent their paycheque, our paycheque and our children's paycheque. If we face another economic downturn, they will spend our great-grandchildren's money as well, long before they have even been born.

In just three years, this Prime Minister has added $60 billion to our national debt, and any comparison to the previous Conservative government's spending is made in bad faith. While the Conservative government faced down the worst economic crisis since the 1930s, this Prime Minister has had nothing but clear sailing. Under the Conservatives, Canada weathered the economic storm better and returned to balanced budgets faster than any other country in the G7. That is because we spent when we needed to and saved when we could.

This Prime Minister has managed to turn a balanced budget and booming world economy into giant deficits and a slowing Canadian economy. While our neighbours to the south enjoyed a 3% growth in 2018, Canada eked out a mere 1.8%. Only a few days ago, the Bank of Canada suggested that we will slow even further this year, to 1.2%.

I know it can be hard to track the numbers. In fact, that is what the Liberals count on. Therefore, let us simplify it: The tens of billions of dollars of wasted, inefficient spending from the current government have done nothing for our economy but bleed it dry. What is the government's response? It is to spend more. The Liberals spend in the good times and the bad. They always spend.

There are only two reasons for a country to have a deficit problem: Either there is a revenue problem or there is a spending problem. With tax revenues actually higher than expected, the answer is clear. The government has a spending problem. In fact, with this budget containing over $41 billion in new spending over the next five years, a seemingly ridiculous question has to be asked: Are the Liberals intentionally spending so recklessly just to stay in deficit? How else can we explain a 20% increase in spending in the first three years of the government's mandate? All of this increased spending is taking place against the backdrop of higher taxes and an increased cost of living brought on by the government.

Over 80% of middle-income Canadians are paying more in taxes now than they were three years ago. This has resulted in many Canadians finding it hard to make ends meet. Almost half of Canadians are within $200 of not being able to pay their bills at the end of the month. Any unforeseen expense would result in these families facing serious financial hardship.

If the government had handled finances better, paid down debt and built a rainy-day fund, we could be cutting taxes for these families and helping them make their payments. Instead, the Liberal government has spent beyond its means and brought in a carbon tax, forcing families to pay more to heat their homes and drive to work. What is even worse is that the Prime Minister is forcing those families to pay the GST on his carbon tax. Imagine that, Madam Speaker, a tax on a tax.

There are two very specific sections on which I would like to comment briefly in my role as the shadow minister for transport in the Conservative caucus. First, I would like to discuss division 12, the government's proposed changes to airport security screening. The Minister of Transport has once again been strong-armed by his colleagues to include drastic changes to the system in a budget implementation act. It appears the minister and the government do not care about the economic well-being of our transportation system, or in this case the air passenger system.

At committee today, we heard that over the past two years, the Liberal government has time and again assaulted the Canadian airline industry with new taxes and costs without thought to how these changes will impact air passengers. Not only that, the government is rushing legislative and regulatory changes through to meet an artificial deadline.

The proposed changes in division 12 contain another example of this. Rather than consult and facilitate negotiations between the parties on a new security screening entity and its assets, the Liberals are ramming drastic changes through Parliament and down the throats of the industry. This will hurt not only airlines but also passengers. For years, governments have paid out less than they collected in the airport security fee that air passengers were charged. This means that passengers have already paid for CATSA assets worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

In a ridiculous move, the government's changes will force Canadian travellers to pay for these assets all over again, without due consideration for their depreciation or their actual value. This will doubtless result in higher ticket prices before even accounting for the carbon tax. The out-of-touch Prime Minister does not get that most Canadians do not have a taxpayer-funded private jet at their disposal for weekend cross-country surfing trips. Most Canadians have to save in order to afford a vacation. Those average Canadians are the ones who will pay for the reckless, heavy-handed changes in this bill. From making Canadians pay a tax on a tax to forcing Canadian travellers to pay for screening equipment twice, the government is better than the sheriff of Nottingham at squeezing taxes out of Canadians.

Finally, I would like to briefly discuss division 11, which contains changes to the Pilotage Act. Based on conversations I have had with stakeholders, I do not have deep concerns with the proposed changes, but it is very disappointing that these proposed changes were once again buried in a budget implementation act. Improvements to the Pilotage Act will reinforce Canada's commitment to a safe and efficient marine transportation system supported by a legal and legislative framework.

Given that, an oil tanker moratorium in any region of the country is an insult to both marine pilots and shippers alike. An arbitrary shipping ban based on an ideological election promise is basically an admission that the government believes there is no way marine pilots or shippers can do the job they have been trained to do. This is an insult to the entire industry.

As I said earlier, this entire budget is a litany of broken promises: a broken promise to balance the budget, a broken promise to help the middle class and a broken promise by introducing an omnibus bill. Come October, Canadians will remind the government of the cost of broken promises.

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

Madam Speaker, I respect that the member has provided her thoughts regarding the budget, even though they are somewhat misinformed. She is very selective with respect to what what she is telling Canadians. Despite her conclusion, things are quite the opposite.

Our government has been genuinely focused on supporting Canada's middle class, not only through budgetary motions but also through many different policy initiatives. These have had a profound positive impact on Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I could speak to the tax break for Canada's middle class, the increase to the guaranteed income supplement and the increase to the Canada child benefit. The government has done a litany of different things.

The bottom line is that our economy has done exceptionally well. By working with Canadians, we have generated over 900,000 jobs in the last three and a half years. It took Stephen Harper 10 years to accomplish what we were able to do in three and a half years. We have put forward so many wonderful policy initiatives.

I wonder if the member opposite might want to revisit her thinking and maybe conclude, as I believe most Canadians would, that this government continues to be focused on Canada's middle class, which is a good thing.

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

Madam Speaker, as I prepared for this speech, I did reflect on what the government had done for Canadians. I think I made very clear in my remarks that the Liberal government was making life more unaffordable for Canadians.

Let us take a look at the facts. About 80% of middle-income Canadians are paying higher taxes. The Liberals have raised payroll taxes. They cut the tax-free saving account limits nearly in half. They cancelled income splitting for families. They cancelled the public transit tax credit. They cancelled tuition and textbook tax credits. They cancelled the children's fitness and arts tax credits. Above that, they have created a carbon tax that will increase the price of gas, groceries and everything else.

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

Madam Speaker, once again, I rise to talk about the environment. This is the number one priority for young people, who have been participating in marches and protests across Canada for weeks now. The Liberals love to talk about how they have a plan and how it is working, but reports were released last week, and according to the Environment Canada report, the Liberals will not reach their targets, which they cribbed from the Harper Conservatives, until 2230. They promised to reach their targets by 2030. That is 200 years too late to limit global warming to 1.5°C. What are we going to do?

On February 10, people in Salaberry—Suroît drafted a motion and came up with lots of ideas. For example, they suggested putting GHG reduction targets in a binding law that would force the government to honour its commitments under the Paris Agreement by 2030, not 2230.

What does my colleague think about the fact that the Liberals are not keeping their promises and are even going to—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I will give the hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek a chance to answer the question.

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

Madam Speaker, all Canadians need to take responsibility and should be good stewards for our environment.

To briefly answer her question, we cannot believe the government when it promises it will do something. As I pointed out in my speech, its budget includes a litany of broken promises. We know the Liberals are not going to reach the targets they adopted, which were set by the previous government. On this point, again, promise made; promise broken.

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

Madam Speaker, the member opposite, much like the rest of the Conservative caucus and the NDP, has it all wrong. This government has been focused on Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it.

In many ways, we have seen policy initiatives that have really provided a helping hand. This government has really made a difference in three and a half years. It has accomplished so much more than what Stephen Harper attempted to do in 10 years, and on so many different fronts.

Where do I actually begin, when I have such a limited amount of time to speak?

Some of the highlights in this particular budget deal with things such as infrastructure. We are providing municipalities, for example, with a substantial increase, going into millions of dollars. In Winnipeg alone, our government is providing approximately $35 million in additional funding to help with local infrastructure. The constituents I represent understand and appreciate how important it is for us to invest in infrastructure, such as local roads.

This budget is a continuation of the very first budget we brought in. It contains policies that would enhance and support Canadians in every region of our country.

I often talk about things that really make me feel good about being on the government bench. If I were to list the top five things that come to mind, the top two would be the tax break for Canada's middle class and the tax on Canada's wealthiest 1% to help pay for that tax break.

We have to recognize the increase in the guaranteed income supplement, which has literally taken many poor seniors out of poverty. I look at the residents of Winnipeg North. The same principle applies to the Canada child benefit.

I know that my time has run out. I would encourage members of the opposition to look at what our government has been able to accomplish in the last few years and recognize that this is exactly what Canadians want a good government to do.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It being 5:54 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #1300

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the amendment defeated.

The next question is on the main motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #1301

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

It being 6:43 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.