Debates of June 5th, 2014

Bill C-31—Time Allocation Motion

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

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

Vote #168

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from June 4 consideration of Bill C-31, Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, as reported (with amendment) from committee.

Report Stage

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to speak to the budget, to be able to speak to the fundamental document that this place produces on a yearly basis. Even though we have other pieces of legislation, it is a summary of everything else that we are ultimately involved in because almost everything in this place, one way or the other, takes money and it takes finances. I would say that for most Canadians, the issue that most concerns them when it comes to politics is how it would affect them and their financial livelihood. We debate many important issues, involving defence and involving justice, but I would argue that for many Canadians this is the fundamental issue that they want the government to address: How does the government deal with the items that affect their personal financial livelihood?

I have gotten in the habit in a couple of my last speeches of starting with an inspirational quote, which I hope sets the tone or frames the backdrop for where I am coming from, and provides a benchmark on whether the piece of legislation, the agenda item we are debating, is appropriate. Let me start with what Milton Friedman said:

A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it...gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.

With that as a backdrop, we need to start on the budget. Does the budget support an increased freedom? Does the budget allow the free market to grow? Does the budget actually allow Canadians to decide what they want for themselves? Or, does the budget guide them to do what a particular interest group thinks they should do? No document is perfect, but let us start to review what we know here, on where the economy is going and the history of what this government has done.

If we look at some of the fundamental markers of this budget and where it is going, we should feel fairly pleased. The deficit is projected to be approximately $5.5 billion, but when we begin to factor in things like the contingency fund and various other possible adjustments, we are effectively at a balanced budget. Whether it technically comes out to that, plus or minus a couple of billion dollars, may not be all that important in the grander scheme, but that is effectively where we are.

When we look at where many of the provinces are and other nations that we compare ourselves to around the world are, we can feel proud of ourselves as Canadians. We have taken the fiscal discipline and the fiscal steps necessary to ensure that our bills are paid. We do not ever want to end up like some of the other countries we have seen in the world, some of the unfortunate European nations, that have essentially had their finances monitored by external bodies to ensure their economy and their finances did not completely collapse the country into complete bankruptcy. Let me give credit to the late minister of finance, and to the current Minister of Finance, for what they have done and how they are projecting us to go forward.

We look at growth in employment, something that many Canadians view as the most important statistic because it very much impacts their life. It is the fundamental economic question: Do I have a job? Is my business succeeding? We look at the period of 2006 to 2012, and we look through the G7. The management of the government is not the only thing that controls employment growth, but we should note that among the G7 countries during that period, Canada's employment growth rose by just under 9%, the best of the G7. Japan unfortunately actually lost jobs during that period, which is sad for Japan. However, Canada, among the countries we often measure ourselves against, was the best performer in a period of economic crisis around the world.

We also look at real per capita GDP. This is not GDP that has been inflated due to some inflationary growth or GDP that has been inflated due purely to population growth, because we know those two things can skew the numbers, but real per capita GDP from 2006 to 2012. Again, among the G7 countries, Canada is up 12%. That means the real economic value of what Canadians take home and of what Canadians create is growing; not just the total because we have more people, not just the notional amounts because we have changed the numbers due to inflation, but the actual wealth of Canadians has grown in the last six years. That is how it should be.

As technology advances, as new efficiencies come into the market, as new and better ways are learned to create growth, that is what should happen. However, none of our G7 competitors performed that well. One of our competitors in that same period due to fiscal issues, economic issues, and so on, had an 11% drop in its real per capita GDP. While we think these things are automatic and we think these things should be normative, we see throughout the world that they are not that way.

The Great Depression is something we read about in history books. I was just beginning to really understand the broader world around me when the Trudeau recession of the early eighties hit Canada. Those things are part of our history and they are aspects of our economic history that impact on Canadians' livelihoods that we do not want to repeat.

What are some of the best and most positive things that the government has done, particularly in light of the quote I gave about increasing freedom, increasing Canadians' ability to make their own decisions rather than having special interest groups dictate to people how they should live? Let us look first of all at what this government has done as far as business taxes are concerned.

Frequently, people who are not in favour of cutting business taxes criticize them because they view business taxes as a benefit to the rich, a group that they are implicitly criticizing. Business taxes are often just the first step in a tax system that goes forward, because ultimately all taxes are paid by individuals.

One of the reasons why governments have pushed to decrease business taxes is because business taxes discourage jobs and job growth. If we look at the Nordic countries, which opposition members sometimes refer to because of their perceived social democratic history, business taxes are often very low. Personal income taxes may be high in those jurisdictions but these countries have done it, along with their free trade orientation and their history of international trade, to promote business growth and job growth.

The marginal effect of rate of taxation is not just the nominal rate, but what we get when we factor in what really gets there, because there are deductions and various other ways to calculate it. Over the same 2006 to 2012 period, this government has brought that down from 33% to 17%. It is very interesting when we read the budget documents to look at it that way.

There is one other area I want to note that really helps to promote freedom and economic growth, because the two are tied together, and that is lessening the regulatory burdens.

I am sure all members of Parliament have had many constituents come into their offices, businessmen, individuals, who have had difficulties dealing with the Canada Revenue Agency. It is one of the interesting things when we start to go through the budget streamlining various aspects of dealing with the GST, HST, and other reporting requirements. These are things that are put together in this budget to help Canadians run their businesses, to have more freedom, and ultimately to have more prosperity.

I want to congratulate both the late minister of finance and the current one for taking an agenda forward that increases prosperity and freedom. Ultimately the two are linked. While no budget document is perfect, just as no member of Parliament or no government is perfect, this budget brings that forward in a positive way. It is the reason why Canada has outperformed other countries. It is the reason why we are in a period of economic growth. It is one of the things we can see that differentiates parts of the country one from another. Areas that have followed similar policies to those of this government are doing, in general, better than those that have not.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard another Conservative member praise this budget implementation bill. The title is rather narrowly focused as many other laws will be amended by this 475-page bill on which a guillotine has just been brought down.

I have a question for the member, who is once again praising this budget as well as previous Conservative budgets. Why has Canadians' debt continued to rise and reached a record 167% since this government came to power? How does he explain that? At the same time, the Conservatives are making ill-considered cuts to many public services to which Canadians are entitled.

In fact, they are offloading the national debt onto Canadians. Canadians have a debt level of 167%. How will this budget tackle Canadians' record debt of 167%?

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I think I will just state the obvious. When interest rates are low and the cost to borrow money is low, things that people want to buy tend to increase. With low interest rates, people tend to take on greater debt burdens because the cost of repayment is lower.

That answers the member's questions.

What this government has been doing, giving more freedom to people by cutting taxes, by increasing their income, by attempting to eliminate unnecessary regulatory burden, has no connection to the fact that Canadians can even get a 1.99% mortgage now. Whether or not it is wise for the individual Canadian to actually take that mortgage is for him or her to decide.

However, with those types of rates, I can see why many Canadians are increasing their leverage to try to go out there and to make decisions that would help their own personal financial futures.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know that Canadians will have listened with interest to the remarks from the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt.

However, just to accompany those remarks, I think Canadians also should know that I think the member's view of history is a bit coloured. He referred to the “Trudeau recession” in the early 1980s, but I think he will know that what happened was that in the United States the federal reserve chairman, Paul Volcker, decided to deal with inflation by targeting the total amount of money in the economy instead of targeting interest rates. That resulted in a sharp rise in interest rates. The prime rate got up to something like 21% in the United States, and in other countries as well, because the currencies are linked, and there was a very sharp contraction in the economy in the United States. That was the cause of the recession.

I know the member is trying to pin it on the Liberal Party. The Conservatives might as well pin all of Canada on the Liberal Party because they go back in history so often to do that, instead of looking forward and trying to decide what to do.

I just want Canadians to be aware that the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt, as sincere as he is, is making partisan remarks and his speech should be looked at carefully and analyzed with that in mind.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as someone who has endorsed policies of the Laurier Liberals, I can hardly be considered purely partisan in my interpretation of history.

I will note, for the hon. member's benefit, that calculations of what the Pierre Trudeau government did in that era include the national energy program, which from some calculations I have seen, cost Alberta $100 billion and my province of Saskatchewan approximately $10 billion.

While it is true the interest rates spike in the United States had impacts, there were other things that were done, which devastated the economy in other parts of the country; in particular, western Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is the second time that I have had the opportunity to speak to another omnibus bill. What most concerned me the first time was the famous Champlain Bridge, an issue on which little progress has been made.

Believe it or not, this bill contains some provisions that are very important to the greater Montreal area, especially to the people in my riding of Chambly—Borduas.

Having said that, the last time I spoke to Bill C-31, we focused on the fact that the bill was eliminating the government's responsibility to comply with the User Fees Act, consult Canadians and ensure that a future toll follows the guidelines in order not to create problems or put further pressure on the economy. At present, this is the problem we see: people living on the south shore and in Montreal are being asked to pay for infrastructure that already exists.

At the end of the day, the major issue with the bridge in this bill and in the changes made is the toll being imposed, as my colleague from Brossard—La Prairie often says. All the elected officials, business people and residents feel that the Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs was either unable to consult the public or simply did not want to do so. This still has not been done.

Since I last spoke to Bill C-31, we have been able to mobilize hundreds of volunteers on the south shore and collect thousands of signatures from people who are against this toll. A day of action was held on May 3. That was really an opportunity for us to see the extent to which people in the region, like many Quebeckers in fact, feel that they are being treated with contempt by the Conservative government. This is a very good example of the government's contempt.

The Prime Minister rises in the House to say that it is a local bridge and it is too bad if there are no consultations. In reality, I believe that over 14% of Quebec's GDP is based on the ability to cross the Champlain Bridge. Billions of dollars of economic activity are at stake. This bridge is by no means a local bridge. When we consider the economic issue and the importance of the greater Montreal area, I think it is very important to show respect to the public, the elected officials and the business community.

It is no coincidence that the mayor of Montreal, Denis Coderre, the mayor of Longueuil, Caroline St-Hilaire, and the mayor of Chambly, in my riding, Denis Lavoie, have spoken out against this bill, together with chambers of commerce and the public.

We feel that this problem is symptomatic of the Conservative government's contempt for Quebec, but often also for various jurisdictions, in its discussions with the provinces and its dealings with the municipalities.

That being said, the government is demonstrating a clear lack of vision when it comes to the Champlain Bridge. I had the opportunity to sit on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. When we heard from witnesses from Transport Canada, namely those responsible for the project, we asked them questions about the terms and conditions set out in Bill C-31 because that was the topic on the agenda that day. They told us that the terms and conditions served to speed up the process. They did not want the Champlain Bridge to be subject to the User Fees Act because they wanted to speed up the process.

As we know the minister postponed the deadline, which is somewhat problematic given that the government does not seem to have done much and seems incapable of proposing a real business plan.

I have family friends and constituents who use the bridge every day. Given the safety issues at play here, everyone in the House would agree that a new bridge is needed ASAP, as we say.

The government is neglecting its obligation to consult in order to speed up the process, but it is unable to say how much time that will buy and what difference it will make. The government claims to be eliminating legal uncertainty in order to make the process faster, but how much faster? Will this buy us days, weeks, months? The government cannot tell us. This shows once again the government's lack of transparency, rigour and consultation in this matter.

The government's lack of consultation or failure to do its homework is another problem. Take for example, the regional impact study that was conducted by the Government of Quebec's department of transport. It is extremely important to determine what impact the new bridge will have on the other bridges, which do not fall under federal jurisdiction, and on traffic in the greater Montreal area, whether it be on the island itself or on the south shore. After all, if there is a toll on one bridge but not on the others, it is safe to assume that this will have an impact on which bridges people use. The report published by the Government of Quebec makes that very clear.

In committee, we asked the witnesses whether the federal government had carried out such a study. The federal government has been talking about this issue and working on it for a long time, since before the 2011 election. After all, this bridge is under federal jurisdiction. However, the federal government does not seem to be as aware as the Government of Quebec about the repercussions of a toll on the region. Once again, that says a lot about the government's failings and sloppiness. We will continue to oppose a toll, and we will do so in an accountable and transparent way by consulting the people, of course.

I would like to touch on another important aspect of Bill C-31. This is yet another issue that does not really belong in a budget implementation bill, but it is very important to my constituents. I am talking about rail safety. Bill C-31 contains provisions relating to rail safety that give even more discretionary power to the Governor in Council, the cabinet, and the minister. That really worries me.

In the wake of tragedies such as the one at Lac-Mégantic, people have been demanding more transparency and more information about the dangerous goods being transported through their regions. What regulations is the government making, and how will they affect our communities? A railway goes right through the heart of my riding, through residential neighbourhoods, and past several schools, including Otterburn Park, where my mother teaches. We know how important transparency is to reassuring people. People want to feel safe. That should be the government's primary concern. Giving cabinet, the Governor in Council, and the minister more discretionary powers and letting them make decisions without informing the public in a transparent way goes against that principle and does little to reassure people.

There is much more I could say. This budget implementation bill includes two transportation files, and that speaks volumes about the shortcomings in the process. The government has used this bogus process many times since it came to power. There are many other components that will affect the people of Chambly—Borduas, but those are two key concerns for my constituents. We will continue with our demands on these issues.

That is why we are opposing omnibus Bill C-31, which is also known as an “omnibrick” bill. As the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard said, it is 400 pages long. We are wondering how many hundreds of pages it will be next year and the year after that. We hope that this will be the last time but, unfortunately, the government is not giving us many reasons to trust its approach. We will continue to oppose the way this government does business.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the member's comments on the size of the budget bill.

Since the government has achieved its majority status, it has used budget implementation bills as a mechanism to pass a series of other pieces of legislation that should have been, for all intents and purposes, stand-alone legislation.

We are talking about hundreds and hundreds of pages over the years. Literally dozens of different laws have all been passed through a budget implementation bill when they should have been separate pieces of legislation. In its entirety, it is almost a session's worth of legislation that could have been brought forward as stand-alone pieces.

To compound it that much more, in terms of making it worse, the government then invoked time allocation. It is time allocation on a budget implementation bill that has many other pieces of legislation within it.

I wonder if the member might provide further comment in regard to time allocation on a budget implementation bill that already factors in numerous pieces of what should be stand-alone pieces of legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his comments and his question.

True, it is not just the size of the bill that is problematic. In 2012, the government introduced Bill C-38 and a number of other omnibus bills totalling thousands of pages. The following year, the government was practically boasting about how the omnibus bill was smaller and contained only a few hundred pages.

It is not so much the size of the bill that we are concerned about, but rather its content. It is absurd that I should be making a 10-minute speech about transportation in my riding as part of our consideration of a budget implementation bill. There is a major problem here.

The members of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities discussed the Champlain Bridge, among other issues. Even though the various elements of the bill are considered by the committees responsible for them, the process will not be as comprehensive as it would be if they were studied as separate bills. This is very unfortunate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with my colleague from Chambly—Borduas that railway safety has nothing to do with a budget implementation bill.

However, because it is in the bill, I would like to ask his opinion about trains carrying hazardous materials in municipalities. Municipalities will not be able to find out whether a train was carrying hazardous materials until three months after it has passed through the area. Municipalities cannot therefore be prepared for any eventuality.

What does my colleague think about this?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

As I mentioned in my speech, this shows the extent to which the lack of transparency is at the heart of the demands of Canadians, municipal officials and the people who live in municipalities like mine where there is a railway.

With regard to information provided to the municipalities, the fact that there is such a long delay before they can receive up-to-date information really does nothing to help them properly prepare in terms of their emergency plans and their prevention plans.

Beyond this, however, and at the heart of this issue, we are dealing with the residents’ feeling of security. The primary duty of the government is to ensure the safety of its people. If people do not feel they are safe, the government is not really doing its job.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent speech. He mentioned the Champlain Bridge and railway safety, two very important subjects.

He also highlighted the government’s lack of transparency. It is exactly this kind of budget that illustrates this lack of transparency, especially with issues such as the Champlain Bridge. The government wants to make Canadians pay not only for the cost of using the Champlain Bridge, but also the cost of our airports, by imposing all kinds of taxes and hidden costs. Ultimately, Canadians will be hit twice to use the airports or the bridges to which they are entitled.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

The government is trying to hide different measures in its omnibus bills in all sorts of ways. The last time, it tried to change the judicial appointment process, because of the fiasco with the appointment of Justice Nadon. This time, it is trying to change the rules of the game regarding public consultation about tolls on the Champlain Bridge. There is also the issue of railway safety, that we have just been talking about. There are all kinds of other things that are hidden.

This is really a shame, because it could be said that the government is using the bill to hide measures that are not consistent with the pretty picture of the perfect manager that it is trying to build for itself or with the spirit of good governance that it boasts about and that obviously does not exist. This bill is a good example of that.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my absolute pleasure to speak to Bill C-31, the budget implementation bill.

A solid middle class is the foundation of Canada's economy. Middle-class Canadians are the glue that binds our society together, and we recognize that our country can only be as strong as its middle class.

Fortunately, Canada's middle class has seen increases of about 30% in their take-home income since 1976, and the share of Canadians living in lower-income families is now at its lowest level in the past three decades.

A recent Statistics Canada study has revealed that since our Conservative government has taken office, the middle class has flourished significantly. I quote:

The median net worth of Canadian family units was $243,800 in 2012, up 44.5% from 2005 and almost 80% more than the 1999 median of $137,000, adjusted for inflation.

Another study, this one from The New York Times indicated that Canada's middle class is better off financially than that of the U.S. I quote:

After-tax middle-class incomes in Canada—substantially behind in 2000—now appear to be higher than in the United States.

Further, since 2006, Canadian families in all major income groups have seen increases of about 10% or more in their take-home incomes.

It may be hard for the opposition to believe, but even the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirms that our government has put $30 billion of tax relief back into Canadian pockets annually, benefiting low-income and middle-income families the most.

This is great news for Canada, and it reflects our government's careful navigation through the worst global economic downturn since the start of the Second World War.

Since the beginning of the recovery, Canada's economy has posted one of the strongest job creation records in the G7, with more than one million net new jobs created since the depths of July 2009.

At a time when other countries' financial systems were brought to the brink of bankruptcy, Canada's banks remained the soundest in the world. When other countries increased taxes, we kept taxes at record lows, and the federal tax burden is the lowest it has been in over 50 years, thanks to our tax plan.

Since 2006, Canadians have benefited from significant broad-based tax cuts introduced by our government. These tax cuts, which the opposition voted against time and time again, have given individuals and families the flexibility to make the choices that are right for them and have built solid foundations for our future economic growth, more jobs, and a higher living standard for Canadians.

Canadians at all income levels are benefiting from tax relief, with the low- and middle-income Canadians receiving proportionately greater relief.

In 2014, an average family of four is saving close to $3,400 in taxes, while one million Canadians have been removed from the tax rolls altogether. Unlike the high-tax NDP and Liberals, our government believes in keeping more money in the pockets of hard-working Canadian families.

That is why we cut the lowest personal income tax rate to 15%. It is why we increased the amount Canadians can earn tax-free. It is why we reduced the GST from 7% to 5%, putting more than $1,000 back in the pockets of an average family of four in 2014. We established the landmark tax-free savings account, the most significant advance in the tax treatment of personal savings since the introduction of RRSPs in 1957.

In addition, we introduced a variety of tax credits that recognize the costs borne by hard-working Canadian families. These credits include the child tax credit, the children's fitness tax credit, the children's arts tax credit, the family caregiver tax credit, and the first-time homebuyers' tax credit.

As a parent, I believe there is no higher calling than that of raising a child, and no reward is its equal. Canadians who have children deserve the government's full support, particularly when it comes to recognizing some of the additional costs borne by adoptive parents.

We heard parents' concerns that the adoption expense tax credit was not sufficient. That is why in economic action plan 2014 our government acted by enhancing the tax credit to support these parents even more. By better recognizing the costs of adoption through increased tax relief, we are making it easier for middle-class families to grow and to make Canada stronger.

At the same time, our government is committed to ensuring that the tax system reflects the evolving nature of the health care system and the health care needs of Canadians. We all use the health care system and we all want it to remain strong and sustainable so that it will be there for Canadians when they need it. Under our government, health care transfers are at an all time high, going from over $20 billion when we formed government to over $32 billion this year, and growing. Unlike the old Liberal government, we have not cut funding to provinces for health care and education.

I find it comical when we hear that the Liberals cut the deficit. Well, we are doing that too, but they did it on the backs of education and health care. We are doing it in a responsible and sustainable manner.

Similarly, health care transfers will also grow under our funding formula, and in a sensible and sustainable way. We will keep growing health care funding to ensure Canadian families can depend on our health care system today and in the future.

Moreover, we recognize there are external health care costs that Canadians have been paying for out of pocket, such as service animals. For example, in the case of severe diabetes, alerts can be raised by diabetes alert dogs. That is why Bill C-31 has proposed an expansion of the list of eligible medical expenses. These important measures are just a handful of examples illustrating how we have responded to the needs of Canadian families and helped Canadians keep more of their hard-earned money.

Perhaps one of the most profound ways we are helping middle-class Canadians is by making sure future generations will not be paying for the past obligations of their parents and grandparents. We are doing so by returning to balanced budgets in 2015. In fact, that was one of my key motivations when I decided to run for the Conservative Party of Canada: I do not want our children's futures mortgaged.

Unlike the Liberal leader, who believes that the budget will magically balance itself, our government has made tough decisions to return to balance, and we have never wavered from our objective. In fact, I am reminded of how my husband and I sat down and talked about the importance of paying off our mortgage when we were younger. We needed to make tough choices. In the same way the government is doing now, we made responsible choices. The result is that we have no mortgage. The Government of Canada is doing that for future generations right now, and I am so proud of the work that is being done. By eliminating the deficit, we will ensure solid, stable prosperity for all Canadians well into the future.

Indeed, balancing the budget and reducing debt would ensure taxpayer dollars are used to support important social services, such as health care, rather than to pay to reduce the debt with interest costs. It would preserve Canada's low-tax plan and allow for further tax reductions, fostering growth and the creation of jobs for the benefit of all Canadians. It would also strengthen the country's ability to respond to longer-term challenges, such as population aging and unexpected global economic shocks of the kind our government so successfully withstood in the recent economic crisis.

Our government understands the importance of middle-class Canadians. As our actions have shown, we listened. We have ensured a middle class for our country that will continue to lead the world.

I am very proud of Bill C-31. I am very proud of our government's responsible approach to deficit reduction. It is a measured and responsible approach. I sincerely hope that we can engage the opposition to support this very important budget implementation bill.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the implementation of FATCA would have serious implications on children in the member's riding.

The implementation of FATCA, according to James Jatras, who was a former U.S. diplomat, would have the purpose of nullifying Canadian protections under the Bank Act, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, otherwise known as PIPEDA, the Canadian human rights code and, especially, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

These people are not just resident Americans. At least a million of them are Canadian citizens. Many of them live in her riding.

Claims that the personal data of Canadians would not be forwarded to the NSA and other intelligence agencies are laughable. Some of those persons are children.

What would the member opposite like to suggest? The bill somehow does not protect the safety, security and personal information of these people, including children.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate that the member understands that our budget implementation bill is there to protect all Canadians, including children.

The best way to ensure we have a prosperous tomorrow is to ensure we pay the debt down today. That is the number one priority in this budget implementation bill.

As a mother of two children, a 22-year-old and a 16-year-old, I am very grateful that the Conservative government is contributing to ensuring their futures are not mortgaged.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was an interesting response to the last comment.

It is not always the case that if people need to get a post-secondary education, they should delay it. Sometimes the right thing for people to do is to borrow some money and get that education so they can have that earning potential and quality of life.

My colleague from the Conservative Party said that there was no higher calling than raising children. I agree with that, but the problem is that many Canadians are struggling to raise their children because of their income level. The tax credits that my Conservative colleague mentioned are just that, tax credits. They are not refundable. People have to be making a good amount of taxable income to benefit from those tax credits.

If raising children is so important, and even more important for people at the lower end of the income scale who are aspiring to reach the middle class, why can we not make some of those tax credits refundable?

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question, as the mother of two children. I will confirm that there is no higher calling than helping the next generation.

I happen to have a son who is in university. He knows that he is investing in his future. He does not expect it to be handed to him on a silver platter with a spoon to match. He expects to work hard every summer. He expects to work and volunteer in the community during the winter. He also expects to have a bit of a debt load when he comes out of university.

He also expects that there will not be magic to balance the budget. He expects that he will be working hard to pay his debt load down as he becomes employable and gets good jobs. It is important for us to impart on our children that they are needed as a part of solving the problems of the future.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech of my colleague from Winnipeg South Centre. I have the honour of serving in the Manitoba caucus with her, and I consider her one of the brightest and most talented MPs in the entire House.

I, too, am very proud to be a Conservative member of Parliament. We are the only party that talks about the need to create wealth. As for the two parties on the other side, the left and the far left, their economic policies can be summed up in three words: spend, spend, spend. We need to have something to spend.

Could my hon. colleague please comment on the measures in our budget that would help to grow our Canadian economy?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, a short response, please.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, a short response?

This is unfortunate, because there are a lot of things in our budget.

I would like to thank the hon. member for his comments and particularly for his kind remarks. We are kindred spirits. I believe that we want to invest in a future so we will enable people to assist Canada in creating wealth and being the country of the 21st century.

That is my hope for my children. That is my hope for all children coming up.

The member's comments are so important. It is not about a handout; it is about a hand up. We are helping the next generation so it can prosper long into the future through jobs and economic growth.

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

Mr. Speaker, last February, I gave a speech after the tabling of the 2014-15 Conservative budget. I told my colleagues in this House about my concerns with regard to the issues of housing for the homeless and infrastructures. Now I think I am going to be repeating myself.

Bill C-31 contains no proposals about community access to the Building Canada fund, and this is a huge flaw in a budget implementation bill. However, rather than repeating exactly the same thing that I have been saying about all the Conservative budgets, I would like to quote the people who are the most deeply affected by the government’s poor decisions.

First I would like to put things in context. In the 2013-14 budget, $14 billion over 10 years was announced for the creation of the new Building Canada fund. When the 2014-15 budget was tabled, one year later, we still did not know how to submit projects for the fund. It is always the same thing with the Conservatives: they pat themselves on the back when telling us about new programs, but always wait until the last minute before telling us any details about them.

Meanwhile, groups, other levels of government and the people who should be using these programs are worried about the possibility of breaks in funding, potential layoffs or construction seasons that are being threatened.

That being said, almost a year after the announcement of the new Building Canada fund, on February 13, 2014, the details were finally announced. However, when you look into what is happening at the municipal level and the positions taken by a number of mayors, it seems that the government failed to consult the municipalities before announcing the details of the new program.

I do not understand this. Every time he is asked a question, the Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs spends his time giving us the same talking points: the municipalities have been consulted at every step in the design of the new Building Canada fund.

The Canadian Federation of Municipalities has in fact had an opportunity to make submissions on the broad lines of the new infrastructure program, but has the federation really been consulted on the details? The answer is no, and those are the facts.

The Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs is always quoting the same statement by the immediate past president of the FCM, Claude Dauphin, to show that the municipalities were pleased with the announcement the government made on February 13, 2014. Clearly, they were pleased. They had been waiting for a year to get more details. The problem is that the minister did not read to the end of Mayor Dauphin's statement.

He went on to say:

However, important questions remain about how the rest of the New Building Canada Fund will be used to meet local needs.Municipalities own a significant majority of public infrastructure [about 60%] and, for a fund that will span the next decade, we must be sure that it is used accordingly. This is the only way to ensure that local governments can address infrastructure challenges in their communities. We are also concerned by rule changes that could force municipalities to carry a larger share of infrastructure costs in the future, the eligibility rules for local roads, the screening process for projects structured as public/private partnerships (P3s).There are 45 days before April 1 when the municipal construction season begins. The federal government needs to work with FCM on details of the New Building Canada Fund...to [ensure that] it delivers the best value for Canadians.

It is rather strange that the minister is telling us that he consulted the FCM, when the very day the details of the new program were announced, the president of the FCM asked the government to work with the organization to review the criteria. Did the minister hear that plea from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities? Once again, the answer is no, and the evidence is mounting.