House of Commons Hansard #227 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was years.

Topics

Presence in GalleryOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear!

Presence in GalleryOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I would also like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Gebran Bassil, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Emigrants of the Republic of Lebanon.

Presence in GalleryOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear!

Bill C-59--Selection of Report Stage AmendmentsPoints of OrderOral Questions

June 9th, 2015 / 3:05 p.m.

York—Simcoe Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for having to scramble. My comments will be brief as a result.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands did not provide me with any notice that she would be raising this point of order, so I had to take some time to try to get some record out of the blues, which I did only a few moments ago. I did want to respond to the points she raised which relate to the decision you will make on the admissibility of her amendments, and in particular the application of Standing Order 76.1 and the practices around it.

I think what she is proposing is a dangerous route for the Speaker to go down. She is asking you to make amendments admissible that otherwise would not be on the basis of when certain evidence was heard at the committee.

The difficulty with this proposal is that it would, of course, require the Speaker to become the judge and arbiter of all the evidence that is heard at committees, when it is heard and the details of it. That is not really the Speaker's job. That obviously goes into the realm of what happens at committees. I think it would put the Speaker in a very difficult position, and a very difficult position that would also involve questions of judgment in terms of policy and in terms of values and in terms of issues which go well beyond where a Speaker should go.

Certainly, when it comes to the question of making amendments, there has never, ever been, to my knowledge, a requirement that the amendments that members propose have to be related to evidence that has been presented by witnesses before a committee. There simply has never been any such relationship required. The implication of the obligation the member wishes to place on the Speaker's job is, in fact, to create such a linkage. It has been a significant aspect of a member of Parliament's privileges that members can propose an amendment on any subject that is relevant to the bill in front of them, regardless of whether or not it was supported or presented by a witness appearing at the committee in evidence. I think it would be a dangerous step to go down a path suggesting that there is, there has to be, in some way, some linkage between the two, and that would not be appropriate.

I will point out that there is, under the existing rules and practices with the resolution presented at the committee, absolutely no bar to the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands presenting, on time, amendments identical to those she presented, out of time, for consideration by the committee.

Simply put, if one looks at how this rule is applied in practice, if we look at Standing Order 76.1, one of the notes says, “The Speaker will normally only select motions that were not or could not be presented in committee.” It does not say anything about selecting amendments that an MP did not have the idea to present at the time the committee met and considered amendments. It is that “could not be presented”.

Wherever the stimulus comes from for an amendment is not at all material, nor should it be material in the decision the Speaker makes on the admissibility of amendments. I think if we start going down that path, it will next be questions of what they read in the newspaper or calls they received, or indeed, input they received from people who intended to be witnesses at the committee and did not appear, or were hoping to appear but were not selected for whatever reason by the committee in its decision on who to hear evidence from. Again, I think that would be a very dangerous step for the Speaker to take.

The fact is the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands did present amendments, did present very many amendments, and has had an opportunity to partake.

Certainly it would be an undue expansion of this rule and of its practice for one to now start allowing this relationship to evidence before committees, and as a result to give some members an opportunity to present proposed amendments after the deadline contemplated and thereby, of course, have knock-on consequences throughout a process of all members in the time of this House.

Bill C-59--Selection of Report Stage AmendmentsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I thank the hon. government House leader for his intervention on this.

I have taken note of the point of order raised by the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands concerning report stage Motions Nos. 49 and 116 for Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures. As I mentioned, I have also taken good note of the intervention made by the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons on this matter.

Given that we are set to begin the debate at report stage of this bill, I will put aside those two amendments and will return with a ruling as soon as possible concerning the specific point of order.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Speaker's RulingEconomic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1Government Orders

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

There are 149 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-59. All motions, except Motion No. 49 and Motion No. 116, have been examined and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at report stage.

Motions Nos. 1 to 48, 50 to 115, and 117 to 149 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 48, 50 to 115 and 117 to 149 to the House.

Motions in amendmentEconomic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1Government Orders

3:10 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting the long title.

Motions in amendmentEconomic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1Government Orders

3:10 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

,

seconded by the member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting the short title.

Motions in amendmentEconomic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1Government Orders

3:10 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 19.

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 29.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 30.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 31.

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 32.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 33.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 34.

Motions in amendmentEconomic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1Government Orders

3:15 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

, seconded by the member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, moved:

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 41.

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 42.

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 43.

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 44.

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 45.

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 46.

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 47.

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 48.

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 49.

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 50.

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 51.

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 52.

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 53.

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 54.

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 55.

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 56.

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 57.

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 58.

Motions in amendmentEconomic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1Government Orders

3:15 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

Order, please. The hon. House leader for the official opposition is rising on a point of order.

Motions in amendmentEconomic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1Government Orders

3:15 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt you, but the member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour is on his phone and that is not permitted in this House. I have made signs for him to stop his call, but he appears to be ignoring me, and quite frankly, he still is. Members know that the rules in the House mean that a member cannot be talking openly on his or her phone in the House of Commons.

Motions in amendmentEconomic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1Government Orders

3:20 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

I hope that the member realized that was not acceptable and that he ended his call.

Motions in amendmentEconomic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1Government Orders

3:20 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

, seconded by the member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, moved:

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 59.

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 60.

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 61.

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 62.

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 63.

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 64.

Motion No. 34

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 65.

Motion No. 35

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 66.

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 67.

Motion No. 37

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 68.

Motion No. 38

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 69.

Motion No. 39

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 70.

Motion No. 40

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 71.

Motion No. 41

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 72.

Motion No. 42

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 81.

Motion No. 43

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 82.

Motions in amendmentEconomic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1Government Orders

3:20 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

moved:

Motion No. 44

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 83.

Motion No. 45

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 84.

Motion No. 46

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 85.

Motion No. 47

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 86.

Motions in amendmentEconomic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1Government Orders

3:20 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

, seconded by the member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, moved:

Motion No. 48

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 87.

Motion No. 50

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 88.

Motion No. 51

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 89.

Motion No. 52

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 90.

Motion No. 53

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 91.

Motion No. 54

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 92.

Motion No. 55

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 93.

Motion No. 56

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 97.

Motions in amendmentEconomic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1Government Orders

3:20 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

moved:

Motion No. 57

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 98.

Motion No. 58

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 99.

Motion No. 59

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 100.

Motion No. 60

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 101.

Motion No. 61

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 102.

Motion No. 62

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 103.

Motion No. 63

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 104.

Motion No. 64

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 105.

Motion No. 65

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 106.

Motion No. 66

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 107.

Motion No. 67

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 108.

Motion No. 68

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 109.

Motion No. 69

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 110.

Motion No. 70

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 111.

Motion No. 71

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 112.

Motion No. 72

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 113.

Motion No. 73

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 114.

Motion No. 74

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 115.

Motion No. 75

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 116.

Motion No. 76

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 117.

Motion No. 77

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 118.

Motion No. 78

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 119.

Motion No. 79

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 120.

Motion No. 80

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 121.

Motion No. 81

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 122.

Motion No. 82

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 123.

Motion No. 83

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 124.

Motion No. 84

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 125.

Motion No. 85

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 126.

Motion No. 86

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 127.

Motion No. 87

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 128.

Motion No. 88

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 129.

Motion No. 89

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 130.

Motion No. 90

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 131.

Motion No. 91

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 132.

Motion No. 92

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 133.

Motion No. 93

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 134.

Motion No. 94

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 135.

Motion No. 95

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 136.

Motion No. 96

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 137.

Motion No. 97

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 138.

Motion No. 98

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 139.

Motion No. 99

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 140.

Motion No. 100

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 141.

Motion No. 101

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 142.

Motion No. 102

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 143.

Motion No. 103

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 144.

Motion No. 104

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 145.

Motion No. 105

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 146.

Motion No. 106

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 147.

Motion No. 107

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 148.

Motion No. 108

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 149.

Motion No. 109

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 150.

Motion No. 110

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 151.

Motion No. 111

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 152.

Motions in amendmentEconomic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1Government Orders

3:30 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

, seconded by the member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, moved:

Motion No. 112

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 164.

Motion No. 113

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 165.

Motion No. 114

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 166.

Motion No. 115

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 168.

Motion No. 117

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 169.

Motion No. 118

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 170.

Motion No. 119

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 171.

Motion No. 120

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 172.

Motion No. 121

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 173.

Motion No. 122

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 174.

Motion No. 123

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 175.

Motion No. 124

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 176.

Motions in amendmentEconomic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1Government Orders

3:35 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

moved:

Motion No. 125

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 230.

Motion No. 126

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 231.

Motion No. 127

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 253.

Motion No. 128

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 254.

Motion No. 129

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 255.

Motion No. 130

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 256.

Motion No. 131

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 257.

Motion No. 132

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 258.

Motion No. 133

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 259.

Motion No. 134

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 260.

Motion No. 135

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 261.

Motion No. 136

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 262.

Motion No. 137

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 263.

Motion No. 138

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 264.

Motion No. 139

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 265.

Motion No. 140

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 266.

Motion No. 141

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 267.

Motion No. 142

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 268.

Motion No. 143

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 269.

Motion No. 144

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 270.

Motion No. 145

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 271.

Motion No. 146

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 272.

Motion No. 147

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 273.

Motions in amendmentEconomic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1Government Orders

3:40 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

seconded by the member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, moved:

Motion No. 148

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Schedule 1.

Motion No. 149

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Schedule 2.

Motions in amendmentEconomic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1Government Orders

3:40 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, thank you for going through that prodigious task of reading out the amendments to this omnibus budget bill. The reason there are so many is that it is such a bad piece of legislation. It takes a lot to fix something that is so inherently flawed as this budget bill is.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for reading out some of the amendments the NDP has brought to this 150-page omnibus bill, which has 270 amendments contained within and a range that is breathtaking. Yet is not surprising with these Conservatives, who have grown somewhat addicted to the idea that all legislation of merit should pass unscrutinized through the House of Commons and should be done under the guillotine of time allocation and the closure of debate. That is a process the Conservatives like to use now, having been in government and having grown in their arrogance and entitlement. It is a process they used to hate when in opposition, and now they have used it almost 100 times, I believe, to shut down debate on almost every piece of legislation that has been in the House.

This bill was also rushed through, yet it touches on some important things. It is worth taking a step back to look at the context in which this budget falls.

We have seen the Canadian economy for the last 16 months experience its slowest growth, outside of a recession, in more than 40 years. Think about that for a moment. The Conservatives have been in power for nine years now, trotting out their old Reaganomics trickle-down theories, and we have seen the results: losses of hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs, 1.3 million Canadians out of work, and almost a quarter-million more Canadians out of work than when the Prime Minister took office.

Having experimented with their failed policies, we now have a moment in which we see the results. For 16 months, the growth rate in Canada has been far below that of population growth in Canada. It is the worst record, outside of a recession, any government has seen in more than a generation. These guys are out patting themselves on the back, spending $750 million on self-promoting ads to tell Canadians how terrific it is, but Canadians know the reality. Canadians who have experienced job losses, Canadians who have experienced the lower quality of jobs, which according to CIBC are the lowest-quality of jobs in Canada in a generation, know the reality. No quarter-billion dollar ad campaign is going to cover up for that.

We have also seen job losses across sectors, not just the more than 400,000 manufacturing jobs in Ontario and Quebec and value-added jobs right across the country, but retail and energy jobs. Just today, Blacks Canada is shutting its stores, following Sony, following Target, following job losses in the energy sector and beyond.

The Conservatives have also refused to act on some things that just seem like no-brainers. New Democrats found a big loophole in the tax system. It is for the folks in the corner offices on Bay Street. It is a CEO-designed loophole for someone who is paid in stock dividends.

Conservatives claim to protect the middle class. I do not know a lot of middle-class Canadians who are paid in stock dividends, but the middle-class Canadians the Conservatives are focused on are given a $750-million tax break every year. That is $750 million for those who get paid in stock dividends, because they get taxed at a much lower rate than we mere humans. The folks up in the office towers and penthouse suites get a three-quarter of a billion dollar tax break from the Conservatives each and every year. New Democrats sought to close that tax loophole and transfer the money over to low-income Canadians, and the Conservatives said no.

The government promised to create more than 100,000 child care spaces. We remember that promise. It was similar to the promise the Prime Minister made that he would not appoint anyone to the Senate. Do members remember that? Do members remember the Prime Minister getting up and saying that he would not appoint anyone to that unaccountable, unelected chamber? That is what he called it. Lo and behold, the seeds we sow bear fruit. We see it today with a bunch of senators finally getting caught with their hands in the cookie jar. They are getting Canadian taxpayers to pay for golf trips, hockey games, for fishing, and for getting a staffer to drive a car back to the east coast. Is it not nice to be a senator?

There is also paying for a second home, because Lord knows, a senator making $140,000 a year and working sometimes three days a week for several hours a day must be exhausted. It must be hard on one's constitution.

All those bagmen, failed Conservative candidates, and failed Liberals that slopped their way over to the Senate finally got caught doing what we know they have been doing for years. Thank God for them the audit only went back so far. We know that if a corrupt institution is built, it will act like a corrupt institution. That is what the Senate is.

If we look back to the original speeches of this country, it was John A. Macdonald, when he was arguing for the creation of the Senate, who said that they needed to create the Senate to protect minorities from the rabble, from the majority here in the House of Commons. What minority was he speaking of? It was the wealthy. His argument was that they needed to protect wealthy Canadians from the rabble, from the rest, from the majority, and thereby needed to create the unelected Senate.

The Prime Minister promised reform, and he only gave us something somehow worse. The New Democrats have been making arguments for generations now to abolish the Senate. Who knew that senators would make an even better case for their own abolition? There they are doing it day in and day out.

What else is in this bill, another massive omnibus bill? The Conservatives do not even talk about them anymore, because they have been such policy failures, but two things they have trotted out include a $2.2 billion income-splitting scheme that would help out only 15% of Canadian families and would skew toward wealthier Canadian families. It would not help create any child care spaces, breaking yet another Conservative promise made by the current Prime Minister. It would not help out low- and middle-income Canadians or working Canadians at all. What it would do is allow wealthier Canadians to split income and so forth and gain back more tax money. That may help out the friends around the Prime Minister's dining table, but it would not help out Canadians around their dining room tables.

The Conservatives then doubled down and said they would double the TFSA, the tax-free savings account, which at its current $5,500 cap is only being maxed out by about 11% of Canadians. We asked them for evidence of how it would help Canadians, even if TFSAs to this point have helped Canadians save. They have not at all. What Canadians are doing is transferring money from one retirement vehicle to another. That is fine and fair enough, but now they are doubling it. What effect will that have?

We learned that the top 20% of earners, the top 20% of Canadians, the wealthiest Canadians, will in fact get 180% more benefit than all the rest of us combined. Is that not nice? If people are well off, earning $200,000 or $300,000 a year, Conservatives have their interests at heart. They are willing to spend billions of dollars to do it. In fact, doubling of the TFSA would, over time, cost $30 billion to $40 billion a year to the treasury. When the Minister of Finance was asked about this, he said that was not for us to worry about; it was for the Prime Minister's imagined granddaughter to worry about. Is that not nice?

That is not the Conservative thinking I know. The conservative people I know in the northwest of British Columbia are conservative in their thinking. They like to pass things on to their kids and grandkids in better shape than they found them. They do not like to leave a big bill behind, as the Conservatives are doing with climate change. The Conservatives are saying that someone else will have to deal with that.

They say that they are going to push forward things to try to buy the next vote, because they are down in the polls and they need help in the election. So what if this thing gets massive over time and costs future generations the ability to pay for health care, roads, sewers, and bridges, which we desperately need.

There is a $172-billion infrastructure deficit in this country right now. What did the Conservatives trot out to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities last week? It was back-loaded programs: transit later, infrastructure funding later. Right now, the Conservatives need to try to buy their way back into office because of all the scandals and the corruption that has gone on under their watch.

We also see that just in the last few years, Conservatives have cut $14 billion from program spending. This is funding that was going to vets, to food safety, to rail safety, and to employment insurance, another fund they raided. We remember how the Conservatives used to chastise my Liberal friends down the way for raiding the employment insurance fund to the tune of $54 billion. The Conservatives must have been paying too much attention.

Finally, there is a little retroactive piece in here. The Conservatives are going back in time and re-interpreting and reimagining the will of Parliament with respect to the elimination of the long gun registry. This is fascinating. The Privacy Commissioner came forward and said that it was perilous. She noted that if the same thing had been imagined by the Liberals while they were in power, we would have never found out what happened in the sponsorship scandal, because what they would have been able to do was retroactively go back and reimagine what Parliament was thinking that day and make what was illegal suddenly legal. They buried this in this bill.

Motions in amendmentEconomic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1Government Orders

3:45 p.m.

An hon. member

What a concept.

Motions in amendmentEconomic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1Government Orders

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

“What a concept”, say the Liberals down the way, Mr. Speaker. If only the Liberals had thought of that we would not have known about all those tens of millions of dollars they stole on behalf of Canadians. The Conservatives probably would not be anywhere close to power, but so be it.

What they want to do is change precedent in Canadian law, and to do this they are burying it in the middle of an omnibus bill.

This does so little for the Canadian economy, and Lord knows, the economy needs some help, but their plan has failed. If the Conservative plan for the Canadian economy was working, well then it would be working, but 1.3 million Canadians out of work today will tell us otherwise. This is not a plan to get this country back on track.

Motions in amendmentEconomic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1Government Orders

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the government's budget, Canadians recognize many different issues. One is the sense of unfairness. The member made reference to income splitting. The government is proposing to spend literally $2 billion annually that fewer than 15% of Canadians would actually benefit from.

The Liberals are suggesting that it would be far better to give money to our middle class in a tax break. We are giving a flat percentage across the board to provide a tax break for the middle class.

I am wondering if the member could give some insight into what the NDP would be proposing in terms of tax breaks, if that is something currently in their platform.