House of Commons Hansard #213 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was chair.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
Before we go to resuming debate, 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 Saanich—Gulf Islands, Foreign Affairs; the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina, The Economy.
Emmanuel Dubourg Liberal Bourassa, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today on behalf of the people of Bourassa, whom I represent, and to present the position of the Liberal Party on omnibus Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures.
This bill says a lot about the Conservative government's current state. It is obvious that we are headed towards an election. This government has always had a single priority: remaining in power. Therefore, it is not surprising that budget 2015 and the bill before us are all about electioneering. Unfortunately for Canadians, when electioneering becomes the sole priority, the government loses all its vision. There is nothing in the budget for economic growth, jobs, the environment or first nations.
The major challenges that we are up against today are completely ignored. Why? There is an election this year, and the sole purpose of the Conservatives' budget is to please its political base. The priorities are now giving gifts to the wealthy and partisan advertising.
The only thing that almost made me smile yesterday after my team, the Canadiens, lost, was the knowledge that we will no longer have to watch the Conservatives' partisan ads at the expense of Canadian taxpayers. The measures in this bill, which we are supposed to be debating today, have already been advertised to all Canadian homes, as though Parliament had nothing to say about the matter. That is essentially how it works under the current government. The Prime Minister governs, and once he has ruled, we, as representatives of Canadians, have nothing left to say. We are familiar with this. Even the members on the other side of the House are muzzled.
I rise today in the House to debate this bill, but I also rise in direct protest of this undemocratic way of running the country's affairs. Fortunately there is an election this fall. It is high time for change. This government is preparing for an election instead of governing, so it is no surprise that its bill is completely out of touch with Canadians' priorities. Although the bill does contain some small measures that we support, its main elements are policies that will simply not benefit Canadian society. That is why we will not support this bill.
I would like to list some of the measures in this bill that are utterly unacceptable. Let us start with income splitting. This is a clear example of how out of touch with reality the Conservatives are because, as we know, only families whose two incomes are in different tax brackets will benefit. That excludes single-parent families. Even a family that the Conservatives would consider typical, a four-person family—according to their 2014 budget—would not get a cent from that. I am talking about people with incomes ranging from $48,000 to $72,000. Such a couple cannot benefit from income splitting at all. We might wonder why the Conservatives are bound and determined to implement this unfair measure that will not do anything for the economy. Put simply, this is an election promise. It was a mistake in 2011, and it is still a mistake now. Still, they insist on bringing in income splitting. Ever since they made that promise, publications and testimonies discrediting the measure have been piling up.
If the government would get its head out of the sand, it would have heard when the C.D. Howe Institute was the first to sound the alarm way back in October 2011. That organization said that 85% of Canadian families would receive nothing, and that among two-parent families, nearly half would receive absolutely nothing or just a few scraps.
In January 2014 the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives was the next one to say that 86% of families would not receive anything and that 60% of families with the lowest incomes, that is under $56,000, would receive only $50, on average, based on the Conservatives' proposed income splitting.
In June 2014 the Broadbent Institute said that nine out of ten families would not get anything. This measure, which targets families with children under the age of 18, has completely missed the mark. Most of them will receive absolutely nothing.
This year, on March 17, the Parliamentary Budget Officer was the next in line to say that the Conservatives' plan for income splitting will cost $2.2 billion in 2015. He estimates that the average benefit will go to families with incomes above $180,000, and that this measure will encourage the person with the lower income, the secondary income, to leave the labour market to try to take advantage of it, which could cost up to 7,000 full-time jobs. Once again, the Conservatives' income splitting measure will cost $2.2 billion.
It is no surprise that, even among the Conservative ranks, some members oppose this measure. I hope they will say so publicly, here today in the House. Yes, some will be held to account, but I also want to talk about one Conservative in particular. The former finance minister, the late Jim Flaherty, had been sounding the alarm from the beginning. On February 12, 2014, he said, and I quote:
I think income-splitting needs a long, hard analytical look...to see who it affects and to what degree, because I'm not sure that overall, it benefits our society.
He added:
It benefits some parts of the Canadian population a lot and other parts of the Canadian population virtually not at all.
The Conservative government insisted on introducing income splitting anyway.
Income splitting has gotten a lot of coverage in the national media as well. In an article in the Financial Post, on February 14, 2014, entitled “Forget income splitting, Canada needs to cut tax rates”, the Fraser Institute said that Jim Flaherty was right about income splitting and that this measure does almost nothing to stimulate the economy or improve Canada's competitiveness.
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation said:
[This program has] been denounced by every credible economic think tank, representing every shade of the political spectrum. Even the federal finance department has weighed in—that analysis is so damning that nearly everything but the commas was redacted before it was released to the public.
The only person who believes in and cares about income splitting is the Prime Minister. It should be noted that he stands to get $2,000 from this measure, but single-parent families will not get a penny from it. We know full well that even within the Conservative caucus, not everyone is comfortable with this patently unfair measure.
With a middle class that is having difficulty making ends meet, a collapsing job market and zero economic growth, we could surely find a better way to spend the $2 billion. The Liberal Party is proposing to give back to the middle class and stimulate economic growth.
To conclude with income splitting, I also want to talk about the misinformation being spread by the Conservatives to the effect that the Liberal Party of Canada is against income splitting for seniors. That is false. We are against the $2 billion income splitting measure in this bill.
Another measure in this omnibus bill concerns the TFSA, or the tax-free savings account. We have to talk about this. I will come back to the fact that this is an omnibus bill, which is really ridiculous.
I would like to clearly state that the Liberal Party supports TFSAs. In their current form, they are an excellent savings vehicle. However, the government has decided to double the TFSA limit in this bill, and that is not right.
Some incorrect statistics are being quoted about TFSAs. Let us clarify. According to the Department of Finance, 18% of Canadians contribute to a TFSA and 40% of those people make the maximum contribution of $5,500. That means that only 7% of Canadians make the maximum contribution of $5,500 to a TFSA.
The government likes to bandy those numbers about and often says that families that earn $60,000 will benefit from the TFSA. Let us clarify. Before TFSAs were introduced, families were struggling to save money. When that measure was introduced, they took all of their savings from previous years and contributed the maximum amount to a TFSA.
The Conservative government always likes to boast that families that earn $60,000 or more can contribute the maximum amount to a TFSA. However, let us be clear. How can a family with a gross income of $60,000 a year that files a tax return manage to save $20,000 per family or $10,000 per person? I do not know any Canadian who earns $60,000 and can save $10,000 a year. That is completely unacceptable.
Still on the topic of the TFSA, the Parliamentary Budget Officer's job is to keep us informed, and he thinks that one-third of the cost of the TFSA will be borne by the provinces. We now understand why the provinces hate this proposal.
Since TFSAs are not taken into account in the calculation of income-tested benefits, old age security cheques will start showing up in the mailboxes of seniors who do not need it. What did the Conservatives do? They have no problem taking away these payments from the seniors aged 65 to 67 who need it most. That is the reality.
We now know why the Conservative government chose to push the retirement age to 67. It wanted to save some money at the expense of seniors aged 65 to 67 who are most in need of help. Why? In order to finance gifts for the wealthy or those who are already well off. A society is judged on the basis of how it treats its most vulnerable. That is worth mentioning.
Let us talk about other measures. The universal child care benefit, the UCCB, is a good idea to give back to families and enable them to take care of their children. It is expensive to raise children. Putting money in the pockets of parents helps them make their own choices about how best to raise their kids.
The thing is, not all Canadian families have the same needs. The families of the Prime Minister and the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada do not need this benefit, this enhanced version of the universal child care benefit, the UCCB, that provides $100 here and $60 there. That money should be going to middle-class families and those working hard to join it. Giving money back to those who really need it should be the priority.
That brings us to the plan that the Liberal Party leader announced on Monday. It is clear. The plan says that we will give money back to the middle class and stimulate growth through very simple, generous, ambitious and, above all, tax-free measures. The Conservatives think that Canadian taxpayers are not smart enough to understand some of the measures they have come up with. The UCCB is taxable. The Conservatives dole out $100 here and there, but it is not really $100 because the following year, people have to include that amount in their tax return and pay tax on it. That is unacceptable. Why play with tax measures like that? It is fundamentally a very complex law, and the measures they are proposing add to that complexity.
We say no. We need to simplify it as much as possible. For instance, if a family has a child under the age of six and an income of $30,000, we will give that family the non-taxable amount of $6,400. That amount is net and crystal clear. If, however, that child is between the ages of 6 and 17, we will give that family a Canada child benefit worth $5,400. It is clear. Those amounts are based on income, and there are other benefits that families with higher incomes will receive.
Those are two simple measures. First of all, there is a general 7% tax cut for the middle class. This measure will really benefit all Canadians. The second measure is the Canada child benefit. I do not think that the Prime Minister's family or the Liberal leader's family need to receive the universal child care benefit, as I said. Let us give it to the people who really need it the most. That is what our measure does.
This is a clear and ambitious plan, as I said. All of that is in the bill, and the government introduced an omnibus bill. I should be talking about that in my speech. There are some measures in the bill that we agree with. However, since it is an omnibus bill, we will be voting against it. It contains some important measures, but for us, the most important thing to remember is that everything I talked about is for the rich. The Liberal Party has presented an ambitious and generous plan for all families, because we need to give money back to middle-class families and stimulate economic growth, which will be good for Canada as a whole.
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Bourassa for his presentation.
I agreed with what he said in the first few seconds of his speech when he characterized the government's budget as strictly an election budget. I thought to myself that we may have found a rallying point. A few seconds later, I realized that, in fact, his introduction served only to give himself a turn at electioneering, but on behalf of the Liberals this time.
I did not really hear him talk about measures that seemed especially important, that are in the budget and that would help Canadians not only get a cheque at the end of the month, but also enjoy a well-paying job and a decent living.
This can be achieved with the help of small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the engine of the Canadian economy. The NDP moved a motion to reduce the tax rate for SMEs. My Liberal colleague voted against that motion. Our proposal is found in part or in essence in the budget, but over a much broader period of time.
What is the Liberals' position on this tax cut for SMEs?
Emmanuel Dubourg Liberal Bourassa, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to thank my colleague from Trois-Rivières for his question.
As he said in the first part of his question, this is an election budget. I am pleased to hear that the NDP agrees. We should also mention that not only is this an election budget, but it also only helps the rich and the wealthy.
However, he alluded to our plan. The straight answer to his question is that there is nothing in this budget to stimulate economic growth. To that end, we are proposing measures that will give money back to the middle class. A number of retail companies have recently closed their doors because people have no money to spend.
Therefore, we are going to stimulate the economy in such a way as to ensure we have sustainable growth in Canada.
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for his excellent speech. It is truly edifying to listen to my colleague, the member for Bourassa, talk about the economy.
I would like to share some comments with the House.
Middle-class families often have children about to enter university. They need money to pay for tuition. We note that many middle-class Canadians have a great deal of debt. If they were to find themselves with some disposable income, would it be more attractive for them to invest in an education savings plan? As we know, the return is quite high. I believe that the federal government contributes 20¢ on every dollar contributed, up to a maximum federal contribution of $500. Furthermore, the Government of Quebec kicks in some money. Therefore, the return is quite impressive.
Is this one of the best investments to make with disposable income for a middle-class family that hopes to pay for its children's tuition, for example?
Emmanuel Dubourg Liberal Bourassa, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Lac-Saint-Louis for his question.
I agree with him that education is very expensive. These days, we meet many families—and I imagine he does in his riding too—who do not know how they are going to pay for their children's university education. It is therefore important to make those investments, but again, people need to have money to do that. Here is the plan that we are proposing to allow these people to have money in their pockets so that they can set some aside for their children's education.
Very briefly, let us look at a typical family, one that earns $45,000 and has a child who is 16 and a child who is four, for example. This family is already thinking about university. Our measure will give that family $4,000 more than this Conservative government is proposing. We are going to give them $9,850 because they have children. That will allow them to set some money aside and invest in these plans and help pay for their children's education.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my neighbour in the House of Commons. I must confess that I really like the Haitian accent. It is so beautiful.
However, I have a really serious question for my colleague about Parliament's abusive use of omnibus budget bills.
Does the Liberal Party's position involve doing away with such abuse? I think that all the opposition parties have to commit to doing away with this sort of abuse before the next election.
Emmanuel Dubourg Liberal Bourassa, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is true that we are neighbours and that we have had some excellent conversations here in the House and in the halls. I thank the member for her well-put question. I congratulate her for making the effort to speak French.
I must tell my colleague that we are against omnibus bills. A few years ago the current government claimed that it was against these bills, which at the time might have had 20 or 30 pages. Now we have a bill with more than 175 pages. It is not unusual for the Conservatives to introduce a bill that is more than 200 pages long, with everything bulked in together.
If we want to do a good job as parliamentarians, it is important for us to have bills that are more focused so that we can vote on as few elements as possible when we are debating bills.
Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe NDP Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague, who spoke a lot about the Liberals' suggestions to help young mothers with young children. I would like to share a statistic from the Childcare Resources and Research Unit, which stated that in 2012, just 22.5% of children under the age of six had access to quality, regulated child care services. More than 73% of mothers of these children are in the workforce. The Liberals' proposal will simply not be enough, in light of the lack of quality, regulated child care spaces for children and given that child care can cost more than $1,500 a month per child. Their proposal does not acknowledge the existing problem.
Is the member prepared to acknowledge these facts and to look at the NDP's new proposal to provide meaningful assistance to women who need child care spaces so that they too can go to work and improve their quality of life?
Emmanuel Dubourg Liberal Bourassa, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.
Before I respond specifically to the daycare and child care aspect she mentioned, I would like to respond to her comment that the Liberal Party of Canada's proposal will not be enough. We presented a $22 billion plan. Consistency is important. The NDP keeps asking where we will find the money, and now they are saying that the amount is not enough. I just said that we are going to give $6,400 to families for each child under the age of 6.
When it comes to child care, we did that. With Ken Dryden, we put forward measures that both the NDP and the Conservatives rejected. Now the NDP is back with its $15 proposal. The New Democrats are offering that $15 proposal regardless of a person's income, regardless of whether they earn over $200,000 or just $15,000. We have to be fair and equitable. We have given Canadians a plan that is fair, generous, equitable and tax-free.
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to budget 2015 and Bill C-59, an act that would implement various measures contained within the budget. The budget contains many measures that I know Canadians are looking forward to seeing put in place.
Before I go on, I should inform the House that I plan to split my time with my hon. colleague from Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette.
I would like to congratulate the Minister of Finance on his first budget and, especially, for all of the hard work that he has put into it. It has long been my view that governments should spend when spending is necessary and save taxpayers' money when saving is possible. This budget controls spending within a balanced budget and provides important tax breaks and cost-saving measures for taxpayers. For this, I congratulate the minister on his very important work.
I would like to acknowledge the work that was carried out by the previous minister of finance, my good friend, Mr. Jim Flaherty. Mr. Flaherty paved the way for this budget during his time as the minister of finance. He oversaw important stimulus funding during the recession and reeled in spending following the recession. His success as minister of finance has allowed Canada to be in the strong economic position that it is in today.
In terms of the budget itself, I am pleased to see that it is balanced. A balanced budget allows governments to cut taxes and pay down debt. It should be noted that before the 2008 recession, this government had already paid down $37 billion of federal debt. This has allowed Canada to emerge from the recession as a global economic leader with the lowest net debt to GDP ratio in the G7.
Canadians expect the government to work within its means, as they have to. That is why having this balanced budget is so important. The budget is balanced while at the same time maintaining record transfers to the provinces for health and education, and keeping the overall federal tax burden at its lowest level in more than 50 years.
This is no easy feat, but maintaining balanced budgets when possible is what is expected of any government. That is why I am pleased to see that the government has introduced legislation to ensure that all future budgets, except during times of recession, are balanced.
I recently hosted a community teleforum for residents in my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, which allowed constituents to vote on several poll questions and call in to express support for or concern about actions of the government. There were several callers who expressed their appreciation that the government had balanced the books. Furthermore, I asked participants to vote on a poll question related to the new balanced budget legislation. The result was an immense amount of support for this legislation.
Having discussed the efforts that the government has taken to balance the budget, I would now like to highlight several measures contained within this implementation act that would greatly benefit residents of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound and, indeed, all Canadians.
The first measure is the reduction in the small business tax rate from 11% to 9% by the year 2019. This measure will affect 100% of the small businesses in my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound and will support the local economies of the many small communities in the area. It is estimated that this measure will reduce taxes for small businesses by $2.7 billion over the 2015-16 to 2019-20 fiscal years. This is an extremely positive measure that is very widely supported.
Another measure that I am supportive of is the increase in the lifetime capital gains exemption from $800,000 to $1 million for owners of farms and fishing businesses. Several farmers in my riding over the past couple of years have expressed support for this measure and we are very happy to see that it is in there. They realize that it will keep more money in the pockets of farmers who are trying to pass on their farms to the next generation. Without this, when they transfer capital, it will otherwise be lost in taxes. This is a huge benefit. In all my work and time on the agriculture committee, and the minister was there today, we are always looking at different ways that allow young farmers to get into the business, and this is a big one.
The lifetime capital gains exemption was increased in budget 2007 from $500,000 to $750,000, and then increased in 2013 to $800,000 and now up to $1 million. That is double over the course of those years. Since 2007, it has been more than doubled, and that is great news for all farmers.
Furthermore, increasing the tax-free savings account annual contribution limit to $10,000 is a very positive measure for many residents in Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. I have already had several constituents contact me asking when they can begin investing more in their TFSAs. I have been pleased to inform them that this measure is effective for the 2015 taxation year. Despite what some people have said about this measure, the TFSA helps many seniors and low and middle-income Canadians save their money. In fact, more than half of tax-free savings account holders earn less than $42,000 per year, and nearly 700,000 seniors who earn less than $22,000 have a TFSA. Therefore, this measure supports a wide range of Canadians.
Along with the TFSA, seniors rely on their registered retirement income funds, or RRIFs as they are commonly known. Many seniors welcomed the announcement that budget 2015 would reduce the minimum withdrawal factors for their RRIFs. Currently, seniors are required to withdraw 7.38% of their RRIFs in the year they turn 71. Although I cannot remember the year, we actually raised that age from 69 to 71. The percentage then increases each year until age 94, when it is capped at 20%.
The new RRIF factors would range from 5.28% at age 71 to 18.79% at age 94. This would allow seniors to have greater flexibility when drawing on their retirement savings and it would also reduce their risk of outliving their savings. It is important to point out that seniors raised that money during their working years, and we have enabled them to use it to enhance their retirement, but more on their terms versus the government's.
Finally, the bill would also implement several important measures to support our veterans and their families. This would be done by providing a new retirement income security benefit to moderately to severely disabled veterans, expanding access to the permanent impairment allowance for disabled veterans, and creating a new tax-free family caregiver relief benefit to recognize caregivers of veterans. These important measures would ensure that our brave men and women would have the support they need and most certainly deserve.
In conclusion, I would like to highlight the success of this and previous budgets since 2006.
Since 2006, a typical two-earner Canadian family of four will receive tax relief and increased benefits of up to $6,600. This is due to the fact that the government has consistently been lowering taxes and introducing support measures. I believe we are up to around 140 different taxes that this government has cut. I stand to be corrected on that number, but I believe I am pretty close. That is a lot.
When we hear from constituents, some will say that a certain tax cut does not benefit them. One thing I remind constituents is that not every tax cut benefits every Canadian. For example, seniors will not benefit from what we have done for families with young children, the same way young people will not benefit from things put in place for seniors. Overall, every Canadian will benefit from at least one of our cuts.
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully, particularly to the beginning of my colleague's speech. He said something about how budgets should be crafted, which I thought was interesting. I then listened to talk about what was in the budget.
Here is the problem with what has been put forward by my colleague. He forgot to mention that the Conservatives took the approach of a fire sale to balance the budget. They cut public services, veterans, meat inspection. As a result of that, 19,000 jobs are gone. The Conservatives then had a fire sale on General Motors, which they had to be pushed and shoved to respond to it in 2008 when they denied there was a recession. The member forgot to mention that. Then they have put a cap income splitting that will only benefit 15%. I know the member's riding well. A lot of people are hurting and suffering. They will not benefit from income splitting.
I would like the member to address the fact that this budget will leave many people behind and the fact that the Conservatives have approached this balance by selling off assets, raiding employment insurance and are not helping everyday people.
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Mr. Speaker, my friend across the way is wrong in quite a few areas. He touched on food inspection at the start. I am a former farmer, although I still have my land being farmed. I take offence to that comment because we have the safest food in the world. We have a great system to ensure it stays safe. The job is being done. We have to give credit where it is due.
As to his comments at the end, people in every part of the country struggle from time to time, but he is wrong on the income splitting. This is wanted, it is needed and it will be widely appreciated once it is in place.
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Mr. Speaker, I will give the hon. member a hypothetical scenario and ask him what he would do.
Let us say he was the head of a middle-class family with young or adolescent children and he wanted to save some money for them to go to university. Maybe he was given some extra money or perhaps his debt was finally paid off, although we know Canadian families are very much in debt these days. Maybe he had some extra cash around, perhaps owing to the Liberal child benefit when it is implemented. Would the hon. member put that money in his TFSA or would he put the money in an RESP, which would earn probably a 25% per year return?
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, the easy answer is that people want choices. If people want to choose to put it in an RESP, or in a TSFA or to keep it in a shoebox at home, that is their prerogative.
However, Canadians do not want the Liberals' child care plan, especially not the NDP's child care plan. They want the choice. They want the money back in their pockets, like our government has done, and they will decide how to distribute it.
I speak with a bit of knowledge on this because two of my sons have young kids. They are in daycare. In fact, my wife is babysitting two of them today. That is how we help out our family and my kids.
Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1Government Orders
Cypress Hills—Grasslands Saskatchewan
Conservative
David Anderson ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Consular
Mr. Speaker, the member talked about the expensive plan the NDP had, which is the state-run daycare it wants to put in place. We know full well that would cost billions of dollars and impact about 5% of the kids.
I would like him to talk a little more about the importance of a balanced budget. I think he mentioned that we brought in $6,600 in benefits and decreased taxes through all kinds of things, TSFAs, GST reductions, tax credits over the years, income splitting, apprenticeship training programs, student grants and those kinds of things.
We are at the point now where we have a balanced budget, and I am very proud of that. However, could he talk a bit about the importance of a balanced budget? Both parties on the other side are talking about increasing taxes. Every family in the country would be hit with that. When the opposition parties think of fairness, they think of taxing every family equally.
Would the hon. member talk a bit about balanced budgets and our program around that?
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Finally a good question, Mr. Speaker, from my colleague from Saskatchewan.
He is absolutely right. If I had a list of all the tax cuts and benefits this government has made, you would probably cut me off, Mr. Speaker, because I would not have time to read them all.
The member comes from a farming background. He knows what it is like to owe money, to borrow money to enhance his farming operation, but he also knows at the end of the day he has to pay that back. We cannot keep running deficits and building up debt, whether it is a small business loan, a bank loan or a student loan. We have to pay the mortgage off some day.
Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB
Mr. Speaker, in my short period of time, I would like to cut to the chase very quickly and talk about two letters I received from two of my constituents who are directly affected by this budget. These are average, rural Manitobans who are not rich by any stretch.
First, I received a letter from Ms. Mackenzie Danard, a mother from Swan River, Manitoba. She wrote me to say, “This helps alot for single parents”, because she is one of them. She said, “Thank you for helping us raise our children”. So much for the idea that this a budget for the rich. It is not.
I also received a letter from Ms. Wendy McDonald from Newdale, Manitoba. Ms. Macdonald was in Ottawa just last week and she wrote me to say, “The reason we were able to afford our trip to Ottawa was due to our income tax refund which was largely unexpected due to income splitting. Our family chooses to put the child care benefit money we receive directly into an RRSP for our two children. I will be one of the Canadians that will benefit from the increased allowance on TFSAs because saving is important to me and allows me to be fiscally responsible in my own household”.
It was shameful for the leader of the Liberal Party to say yesterday, “benefiting every single family is not what is fair”. For these two families, this is fair.
I want to make a point about the NDP members especially. They dislike ambition, they dislike merit and they dislike hard work. We are the party truly representing working people and this budget is designed for people who work hard and play by the rules.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
The hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette will have eight minutes remaining in time for his remarks when the House next returns to debate on this question.
The House resumed from May 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C-638, An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 (wreck), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
It being 5:30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-638.
Call in the members.
Bill C-59—Notice of time allocation motionEconomic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1Government Orders
York—Simcoe Ontario
Conservative
Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.
The House resumed from April 28 consideration of the motion.
