Debates of Oct. 31st, 2016

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-29, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The House has five minutes for questions and comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is related to the budget itself. We saw a commitment to reduce the middle-class tax bracket, which would provide millions of dollars for nine million plus Canadians. We saw a special tax increase on Canada's wealthiest. What surprised me is that in the past the Conservatives talked about giving tax breaks to Canadians, yet when it really came down to it, the Conservative Party voted against the tax decrease for Canada's middle class.

My question is fairly simple. Why did the Conservative Party vote against the tax decrease for Canada's middle class?

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for his question.

The answer is extremely simple. When I take a good look at this budget and try to sum in up in a few words, it is pretty straightforward: more taxes, more taxes, and more taxes. An out-of-control deficit is enabling the government to spend money and make investments while downloading those costs onto our children and grandchildren. When I look at the statistics and the real facts, I see that there are fewer full-time jobs in Canada right now. If my colleague thinks that is good for Canadians, then we will never see eye to eye, unfortunately.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I greatly appreciated listening to my colleague, who managed to present a clear and concise argument that made it easy to understand why he is against Bill C-29, a bill to implement the Liberal government's latest budget.

I have a simple question for my colleague. Does he know any expressions to describe what the Liberal government did, in other words promise one thing and do another?

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for giving me the opportunity to identify the expression we use when someone keeps talking and talking but does not do what he says he is going to do. The expression is: if you are going to talk the talk then walk the walk. The government is failing at the latter.

We are asking that the government's actions reflect what it says. That seems simple enough to me. When we compare the announcements that are made here and there to actual facts, we see that the results do not line up with what was said.

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

Madam Speaker, another aspect of the budget was the increase in the guaranteed income supplement for our seniors, which has taken some of the most vulnerable seniors across Canada, in every region, out of poverty, as well as the reduction in the age of entitlement for OAS from 67 to 65. These are two very positive measures taken by the government through the budget.

My question is the same as before. Why did the Conservative Party vote against those benefits going to Canada's seniors?

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for this additional question. It is a similar kind of question, so it will get a similar kind of answer.

We voted against this budget purely and simply because this government's actions will hurt future generations. The Liberals think they are doing the right thing, although we are not satisfied with what they have presented. All they are doing is dumping the problem onto future generations.

I said so in my speech, and I would be happy to explain it again. It is like when someone goes to the bank to borrow money to buy a house. The problem is not the act of borrowing. The problem is having no plan for paying back the loan and leaving one's children to foot the bill. What does the banker do? The banker tells the borrower to go home and do their homework, to look at their income and figure out how they are going to pay off the mortgage.

If this government is so responsible and really wants to create jobs, we are calling on it to do its homework and present us with a plan for economic growth and the sound management of public finances. It has not done that so far, and the numbers prove it.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Intergovernmental Affairs)]

Madam Speaker, it is a great honour to rise in the House in support of this budget, which would do so much good for so many people right across the country, from coast to coast to coast. It is indeed a privilege to speak about some of the benefits it would bestow, in particular, upon vulnerable populations of this country, populations that for a long time have been ignored. I say that because tax cuts, quite frankly, are not the only way to help these people, which seems to be all that we heard over the last 10 years.

In particular, I want to talk about the support that has been provided to families, specifically low-income families, with the child tax benefit. This motion in front of the House today tries specifically to lock in that support even further, not just this year but in the years going forward, to support those families as they seek to join the middle class or cement their places in the middle class.

Most important is that the House has managed to listen and understand that not every piece of legislation is letter perfect and that when suggestions or improvements are put on the table, we respond in kind by embracing those ideas and making them better, because better is always possible. I am speaking specifically about indexing.

I would be remiss if I did not tell the Chair that I will be splitting my time with the member for Vancouver Centre. I neglected to say that off the top.

The second component is pensions and the guaranteed income supplement. We know that the most vulnerable people in our society are quite often women who, later in life, through no fault of their own, have found themselves in a position where they have not fully contributed to CPP and thus are not able to fully realize the benefits this country has bestowed on others, or where their partners have passed on and they are in very vulnerable situations.

The boost to the guaranteed income supplement is fundamental to lifting seniors and, in particular, elderly women out of poverty and into positions where their security, health, and their enjoyment of their later years of life are guaranteed by the additional support provided by this budget. These are two very specific groups, young families and single seniors, who quite often find themselves in the most marginalized of economic situations. This budget would address them directly.

Another group looking to this government for help is students. Support for students comes in many forms, but there are two specific measures contained within this budget document. One is the support provided to help students get into universities or colleges by providing support for tuition. These measures are taken specifically to reduce the cost burden of entry into post-secondary institutions, which give people the platform to succeed, thrive, and support themselves in this new economy.

The second is the support that would be provided through the doubling of the Canada summer jobs program. Additional measures contained in this budget would not only provide support for them to get into university but also keep young people in universities with access to good, quality summer jobs often related to their fields of study. That is good social policy that supports people with real work experience as they seek to get the skills they need to compete and thrive in the new economy as we embrace a new century.

The other component is EI reform. We know that not all cylinders in every economy fire at the same time and in the right way. We know that there are downturns in sectors from time to time, whether in the film and digital media sector in the city I represent, or folks in the oil patch out west, or folks on the coast who might be in the fishing industry. We know that EI has to be modelled around those employee groups to support them. We have taken steps in this budget to compress the time for the application of benefits and to make sure that benefits reach parts of the country that are most vulnerable, so that while help is on the way and being delivered, families do not go without, support exists, and is targeted for those sectors in a way that is very specific.

It is not a substitute for economic growth and it certainly is not a substitute for jobs, but we know that when Canadians fall on hard times, other Canadians need to support them. This bill would seek to change some of the dynamics around EI to make sure that folks who face that situation are not left behind as the economy moves forward in other parts of the country.

Also embedded in this budget are tax cuts and a series of tax reforms to make taxation fair. I think it was Richard Nixon who once said that taxes will never be popular, but they should be fair. This budget seeks to do just that, to make taxation a fairer proposition for Canadians so they are confident that the dollars sent to Ottawa are not being sent by one group at the expense of another, but that the tax burden is being shared based on the ability to pay. That is why taxes are focused on the top 1% and would provide tax relief measures to the middle class.

If we go through the budget document that is tabled in front of us, there are also measures being taken to tighten up the tax code, so that loopholes that used to be there are narrowed, if not eliminated. Doing so, again, would make the paying of taxes fair. It would give all Canadians confidence that those who have the ability to pay are being taxed fairly. It would give confidence that those who do not have the ability to pay and are in need of support are being taxed appropriately, if at all, and that supports are there for the unique circumstances across a broad range of issues that I have just discussed.

As we talk about the economic dynamics as a series of metrics, and its people as a series of demographic groups or folks fitting specific dynamics that challenge their economic reality, we also have to understand that the real goal of this budget is to do more than simply deal with the inequities. It is also to create an economy that is actually producing more, delivering more wealth to be redistributed, hiring more people, as the incentives are delivered to the private sector to help us build this country in partnership with the public sector and with the community.

The fundamentally most important part of this budget, from my perspective, is the investment in infrastructure that would deliver real housing to real people in real need right across this country, right across the full spectrum of housing needs that stretch across this country. That is whether they are folks living hard on the street through no fault of their own, who have fallen into chronic homelessness, all the way through to supportive housing and transitional housing, social housing, affordable housing, affordable rental housing. There are new programs to make sure that people gain access to the housing market, have their investments stabilized and protected, right through to the end, luxury and the private market affordability that is delivered to so many people.

The full spectrum of housing needs are spoken to in this budget. Most importantly, from my perspective, is that social and affordable housing are back on the federal agenda. It is back as a focus of interest for the national government. We are currently engaged with provinces and territories, and municipalities in particular, as well as aboriginal first nations, Métis, and Inuit groups, to make sure that housing is delivered right across this country, from coast to coast to coast, in a way that supports people as they seek to support their families.

This is the most important part of the budget from my perspective. It is certainly the reason I came to Ottawa. The reason I left city council and ran federally was to make sure that this housing program was re-established on a national level. I am extraordinarily proud to see the work being done by our ministers on these files. I am extraordinarily proud of the fact that the government is stepping in and stepping up, for the first time in my lifetime, in a way that is truly meaningful and will transition this country back into a situation where housing is no longer seen as a vulnerability, but one of the shining examples of how Canadians can pull together to make sure that all of us are adequately housed, adequately supported, and put in a position to thrive and succeed, despite some of the challenges we are delivered by fate.

The other component of this, which I think is just as important, are the transitions and changes we are making around transit and transportation funding. We have come through an extraordinary period of time, in which transit has not been properly funded by the previous government. We have seen projects picked out of the air, on fishing trips in the case of Toronto, where one project gets the funding, but a whole series of other projects are left behind.

We have seen, for the last two years, the cities of Vancouver, Calgary, Regina, Winnipeg, Toronto, Mississauga, Ottawa, Montreal, Halifax, and St. John's not receive a penny of new infrastructure investment. That was because the previous government liked to announce money, loved handing out the big cheques, but never actually wrote out a cheque to be cashed. It could cut ribbons, but it could not cut cheques. As a result, we lost years of growth in the transit file due to the sort of showmanship that was on display. It certainly was not good urban support or an urban agenda, by any stretch of the imagination.

As a result, lots of cities, lots of communities, and in particular lots of families, were left behind, as trains went by, packed full, unsupported by the federal government, or as buses never arrived because the dollars did not arrive in those cities either.

Not only have we stepped up historically on transit, but we have also done something else which is critically important for cities right across this country. We withdrew the firewall between state of good repair and new projects. In other words, if money arrived or it was promised, if there was any money on the table, it was only for new projects and new services, which quite often generated operational costs for cities and municipalities.

What we have done is we have removed that firewall. We have allowed state of good repair and capital maintenance to be included in the capital repair budget of transit operators across the country, and, in doing that, we are building stronger transit systems while also supporting the growth of transit.

Finally, with regard to the green infrastructure, there is an old saying at city halls right across this country, “If you don't manage the water, the water will manage your town eventually anyways.” The green infrastructure funds around flood protection, clean water, and environmental adaptations to make sure that we embrace the next century with confidence rather than fear as a result of climate change have been made in this budget.

Together, all of those investments create an economy that partners with the private sector to deliver a new society, a new level of infrastructure, new capacity, and new strength in the Canadian economy. This is exactly the platform we intended to create. It is exactly what the budget motion would deliver. In doing so, we are going to create the context for people to succeed in this country. I am proud to support this budget.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, during the election, the Liberals said they would invest in Canadian infrastructure. That is on page 15 of their platform, under the subject of infrastructure. However, during the last couple of weeks, we have heard reports which suggest the selling off of some of our public infrastructure, such as airports, bridges, and maybe roads, which is not mentioned in their platform. Therefore, I am wondering this. Since the budget has come out, it has mused about asset recycling, which I believe is a fancy word for privatization. Another new term is “flywheel for reinvestment”. I am trying to get an answer to this specific question. What do the Liberals mean by these fancy words? Is it to privatize our public infrastructure?

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, the infrastructure bank was certainly talked about in my election campaign, and it certainly has been talked about by this party for quite a while. However, it is not a replacement for infrastructure investments. The $60 billion we promised is $60 billion. The member can talk to his mayor in Hamilton to see how happy he is about the money arriving in Hamilton, for things like building the new LRT and the investments for housing. The mayor of Hamilton has endorsed our program as visionary, and has embraced it as a way of moving the city forward.

What we are talking about in an infrastructure bank is finding new ways to partner private capital with public good and public need, to see if there is a way to extend the capacity of this country even further by blending new mechanisms. I will provide a perfect example of why it is so critically important. There are small communities that cannot borrow against their assets and have no way of participating in the infrastructure program. The infrastructure bank might be a way for smaller communities to partner with these infrastructure funds, get ahead, and build the infrastructure they need, without having to borrow at even higher rates than they would have to currently. That is one of the things that the infrastructure bank could accomplish.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke a bit about the increase in the student grants, which will help close to 350,000 low to middle-income students. I am wondering how this program will help students in his riding.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, when we help students gain access to higher education at an affordable rate, it does two things: one, it gets them the education and the training they need to compete in the new economy, which is critically important for students who live in my riding, a riding that is home to three different universities and a number of different colleges; and, two, it allows students to graduate without as much student debt, which means they can enter into and spend in the economy in a more confident way rather than simply paying back debt. Therefore, it is a combination of measures. There is not any single one that is perfect, but, in concert, they are much better and much stronger. As a result, we are propelling students forward rather than holding them back. It is one of the reasons, again, to support this budget.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would like to talk about the issue I have raised a couple of times today regarding child poverty. I am quite disappointed that the government has decided to let the value of the child benefits erode over the next four years, with no indexing until after the next federal election. That means that many people in my riding will lose the equivalent of $500 in family benefits. The Minister of Families, Children and Social Development claims that these measures will decrease the child poverty rate from 11% to 6%. However, if that indexing does not happen until after the next federal election, will we actually see a decrease in child poverty? Or, will it start to increase again because the child benefit was not indexed right from the beginning?

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I hear the concern from the member opposite, and I am glad that more indexing has been embedded into the proposal through this motion. I look forward to seeing what the committee does with respect to strengthening the child benefit, because I think it is a very effective tool. However, I would also add this. As an advocate for housing, the most important contribution that this government will make toward ending child poverty in this country is through the national housing strategy. It is currently being negotiated. That is the most important step, above all others. I hope we get the member's support to ensure it is as strong as possible, and as well funded as possible.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I can either say that great minds think alike, or that because we both come from the two major cities in this country that are having problems with housing, that my colleague has spoken about something that I intend to speak about.

I want to support this budget implementation bill. As we heard earlier on, it is not just about lowering taxes for everybody, and it is not about boutique tax benefits or tax credits. One of the things that has always plagued my city of Vancouver a great deal is housing. Back in 1997, when I was a minister in the Chrétien government, we saw the problem of homelessness beginning to emerge. Later on, there was the inability to have access to affordable rental housing. We have seen people unable to buy into housing. We have seen the co-op housing system begin to weaken, because a lot of the co-op housing that was built in the sixties has begun to fall into disrepair.

We began to invest in housing. It is important. This was something that we started to do. It had begun to make an impact, but for a decade we saw very little investment in housing entirely. In my city of Vancouver, we can walk down the street and see tent cities, and that is a homelessness issue. We see people who cannot afford to take shelter. We know that there are many women who cannot afford to stay anywhere because of the fear of violence. They have to find a place to get housing that is going to shelter them.

We looked at the whole spectrum of housing in the budget, and that is very important. We looked at homelessness. We are looking at women who are fleeing violence, who are now getting safe shelters to live in. We are looking at the ability to have affordable rental housing. People do not understand, unless they live in a riding like mine, that we have a whole lot of people who cannot afford to move into their own housing, who cannot afford a first home, so they are staying in affordable rentals. The people who need affordable rentals cannot get into affordable rentals because of that bottleneck.

The ability to move into that next front is where we have come back into the housing market. We have done that. For the first time in a decade, the federal government is back into a national housing strategy, working with provinces, working with municipalities, and working with the private sector to build housing, so that people can afford to move out of affordable rental housing and move into homes and first homes. We have formed a very strong partnership with the cities across this country. We have seen them moving forward. We have seen that need for them to start to build, and we have seen provinces coming together with us to be able to build housing.

Housing is a fundamental human right. People who cannot afford housing live on the streets. People who cannot afford housing live in substandard housing. Their children get sick very easily. Their children cannot do homework, cannot go to school, and they cannot thrive. They cannot find that means to move forward so that the next generation can do better than this one. The issue of child poverty is inherently linked with the issue of housing. We have seen this happening in my riding over and over. People are housed in a two-bedroom place with five children and two parents, and quite often grandparents. For me, the most important thing is the ability to afford housing.

We put in $550 million over two years for the affordable housing initiative, and that is a doubling of federal funds in that category. We are supporting 100,000 households. That is a large number of people. We will be able to build new units, renovate existing homes, and provide rent supplements. There will be $30 million over two years for co-op rent subsidies. We know that co-op housing is an essential form of housing. It came in during the fifties and sixties and allowed people to move into a home of their own, where 50% of the people had market housing and 50% of the people had subsidized housing. This an important way to allow people to live. Families grow up in co-op housing, and they have moved on from co-op housing when the children leave into single unit seniors housing. It is a small village, where people begin to build their lifestyles.

We are continuing to allow rent geared to income in those co-ops, with $200 million over two years to seniors for affordable housing. I have a lot of seniors in my riding, and for many of them, if they are going to pay for their housing needs or rent housing where rents are going up and up, they cannot afford to eat.

When we talk about what a budget must do, it must not just help the middle class. That is what we are hoping to do. A good government needs to look after the most vulnerable, those who cannot afford the necessities of life that keep them healthy and strong.

Another part of the budget I like is the ability to help seniors. A lot of seniors are chronically ill. They suffer with diabetes or arthritis. They cannot afford to eat properly. They are filling the hospitals.

It is a case of understanding that when we put money into things like this, we save money at the other end in terms of health care.

Putting money into community housing and into home care units is important in allowing people to age in their communities and to have a good quality of life as they get older. These are really important problems we are trying to solve.

We are putting $208 million for CMHC towards supporting 4,000 units of affordable rental housing. We are exploring innovative ways to lower costs and risks. We are committed to developing a national housing strategy with the provinces, territories, indigenous governments, cities, and stakeholders. We will get a report from the minister on the consultations on this new housing strategy on November 22.

This is the first time we have begun to talk about the need for housing as an absolute staple in people's lives. In fact, the talk about getting back into housing has prompted some provinces to put money directly into housing. I know that the Province of British Columbia has committed $500 million to affordable housing in this fiscal year alone. It is the largest increase in B.C. history for housing. The City of Vancouver, which does not have a lot of money, has offered 20 sites, worth $250 million, on which the federal and provincial governments can build housing.

I cannot stress too much how important housing is. When I was a little girl, I grew up in social housing. I know the need for housing. I know the dignity of housing. I know the need to live in a place where one can be proud to bring one's friends home. I know the need my parents had to afford a place for me to live and to still afford to feed me and ensure that I got a good education. These are the kinds of things that help people move up the ladder so that future generations can do better, go higher, and begin to form stable lives.

Talking about seniors again, we know that many seniors cannot afford to eat food and live at the same time, so we have actually moved 900,000 low-income single seniors out of poverty by increasing the guaranteed income supplement. We have allowed people to get their old age security at 65. Many people at 65 have to retire, because they have been working in jobs where they have hurt themselves. They have back problems. They are not able to continue to work until age 67. That means that we are in touch with people. We were listening to what people were telling us they need.

We committed, in the spring, with the agreement of all the provinces, to do something that is really important: expand the CPP. We know that many people in this new world of work are working in precarious jobs. Not only are they working in part-time jobs with no security but they are working in jobs where they do not foresee retirement. Their employers are not able to give them the kinds of pensions we had about 20 years ago. We see people needing to put down those roots so that when they are seniors, they can be healthy seniors who are not in and out of hospitals in a health care system that is not able to support them, because we are all aging.

One of the things we see is that benefits will reach 33%, not only for seniors who are going to be retiring soon but for young people who are getting into the workforce who can look forward to about another 25 years of work. They can actually look at having a proper retirement and to being healthy when they retire.

I would like to say one final thing. Government is not just about taxes. Government is about ensuring that the taxes we get from the population go toward helping those who are most vulnerable. As a Liberal, for me, this is very important, because there are so many people in my riding who are extremely vulnerable. This budget is helping them.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about retirement and the strength of the Canada pension plan. My concern is what the government is doing to allow people to save their own money. It is taking away a whole bunch of avenues for Canadians to actually save the money they earn.

She talked about the Canada pension plan. If someone is 64 years old and passes away, that money is gone. It goes back into the pot. Now the government is looking at expanding the Canada pension plan.

If there are options, the more options Canadians have the more decisions they can make based on their personal situations. I would ask my friend opposite how she expects Canadians to actually save for retirement when the government keeps taking away those options and increasing taxes and expects them to have some money left over at the end of the day.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is a virtuous cycle we are talking about. The virtuous cycle says that if we help people afford housing, help them get good, stable jobs, and help them get a pension from their employer, they are able to save money at the same time. They are able to save money, because they are not paying exorbitant amounts of money on housing. They are able save money, because they know that they will have a pot of money at the end when they retire.

A secure retirement is essential to most people, and we do not have that anymore. We are seeing people unable to retire, because they do not have pensions anymore.

On the ability to save, there is still more than $5,000 for a tax-free savings account, and most middle-income people can barely afford that, but at least there is a place for them to put aside money, which encourages them. However, when we move to $10,000 in a tax-free savings account, many of the people we are talking about, when they become seniors, would not have the ability to live a good life. They could never afford to save that kind of money.

We are being realistic.

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

Madam Speaker, deficits are an interesting thing. Of course, the principle behind deficits is that we leave them to our children and grandchildren to pay. The government started during the election with a $10-billion deficit then went to a $30-billion deficit. I have heard figures as high as $47 billion.

It is easy to be in government if one is willing to write cheques whenever an opportunity comes forward, but I wonder if the member could tell us how much she thinks might be too much, in terms of accumulating debt.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, again, there is no one solution to any problem.

You talk about accumulating debt and passing it on to our children, at the same time—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I remind the hon. member to address the question to the chair.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member knows that if we actually give people assistance in getting their children an education and in getting an affordable, stable, safe, and secure place to live, we begin to start helping people along that cycle, and their children do better and get better jobs.

It is not simply a matter of saying how much debt when we are also helping the next generation to get jobs and when we are building new industries in the creative sector for those people to get jobs. When we are investing in skills, training, and education, we are at the same time lifting that next generation and are not placing them in debt.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech. Central to that speech was housing. I would ask the member how housing is the foundation for ensuring that all parts of our budget lead to a good and improved quality of life for people in her riding and especially for seniors, families, and the most vulnerable.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, housing is essential to the quality of life people live. The evidence shows us that people who live in substandard housing or people who spend more than 70% of their money on housing in unaffordable rental housing, which people are doing in my riding, cannot afford food. They cannot afford to feed themselves properly. Women cannot afford to go to work, because they cannot afford to leave their children with anyone, because they do not have the means by which to do it.

It is all about how one thing plays into another. If we look at this as a holistic thing, if we look at housing as being a bedrock for creating strong and stable families, then we are actually moving forward in the right direction.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would like to inform you that I will be splitting my time with the member for Hamilton Mountain. I want to wish everyone a happy Halloween.

Today we are dealing with the sequel to the first Budget Implementation Act. Once again, we see that Liberals seem to be emulating the Conservatives with another omnibus bill. This one is tipping the scales at a good 231 pages, while the previous one, which was Bill C-15, was 179 pages.

I remember debating Bill C-15 in June when it came before us for third reading. That bill changed 30 different statutes. I remember that the NDP at that time argued that several portions of the bill should be split so that members in this House could do their due diligence, both here in the House and at finance committee. Unfortunately, those recommendations were not agreed to by the government and we had to again go through the omnibus bill.

I remember that the Liberals at that time were extolling the virtues of their so-called middle-class tax cut and the fact that they were bringing in the child benefit and had made some significant changes to employment insurance. It seems that for the second budget implementation act, we are hearing much the same arguments. It seems to be a chance for the Liberals to again put forward the arguments put forward in March in their budget speech, and so on.

The bill amends 13 separate pieces of legislation. I would have hoped for a little bit more time to study each individual one, but I hope that the finance committee will get its opportunity to do that. Some of the major acts that will be changed by the bill concern the Income Tax Act, the Employment Insurance Act, and the Old Age Security Act, among others.

One of the things we in the NDP have been concerned about that we have been hearing from the Liberal government both last week and this week, and what I suspect will be formalized in the economic update tomorrow, is the privatization of our infrastructure. This is very worrisome to me and to many of us on this side, and indeed to many Canadians, because it was an agenda that was never presented in the Liberals' election platform.

I am one who believes fundamentally that when we put forward a platform and use it to get votes, we should honour it, and there should be no hidden surprises. I feel that with this privatization agenda, the Liberals are taking a page from their provincial cousins in Ontario and that consumers and Canadians will be the ones who end up paying in the long run.

I believe that the real change that was promised last year was not supposed to be just a coat of red paint over the old blue one. There was supposed to be a whole new vehicle for Canadians. I think we are seeing a lot of the same arguments come forward. The Liberals did not run under these promises.

I will say that the Liberals are very good at acting like New Democrats during an election, but when it comes to governing, they are very good at acting like Conservatives.

The biggest problem is the fact that this was never outlined in their platform. I will go into further detail about that.

The first point is that the Liberals stated in their platform that they would establish a Canadian infrastructure bank, and I believe they will be going ahead with that. This bank was to provide low-cost financing for new infrastructure projects, but again, nothing was mentioned about privatization.

The second point is that the federal government would use its strong credit rating and lending authority to make it easier and more affordable for municipalities to build the projects their communities need. Again, nothing was mentioned about privatization, nothing about taking those assets and selling them to the private sector for private interests.

The third point was that when a lack of capital represented a barrier to projects, the Canadian infrastructure bank would provide loan guarantees and small capital contributions to provinces and municipalities to ensure that projects were built. Again, there is no mention of privatization of infrastructure assets.

I believe that Canadians were misled and will be in for a surprise at tomorrow's update.

At this point, I would like to acknowledge the hard work of my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. He has done some amazing work as our finance critic and really has led the charge for our party in exposing these plans and raising our party's concerns about them.

In budget 2016, we got a hint about what was to come and we started to see the term asset recycling. We found out that the government was now asking Credit Suisse for advice on the benefits of privatizing airports. This advice is coming from a company that buys airports. This is a clear conflict of interest. It would be like me asking a senator on whether it is a good idea to abolish the Senate. I do not think I would get an honest answer to that question.

I believe the infrastructure bank that is being proposed is going to be largely funded with private funds, and those are ultimately going to bestow a high cost on our society. Any company that invests in infrastructure is going to demand a high rate of return. It is not going to act in the public interest, and that is an important point to establish. It will be working on behalf of private shareholders.

Infrastructure projects by their very nature are a public institution. Everyone depends on them. When we start selling those off, it is very hard to get them back and it becomes very hard to implement policies for the public good. On this side, we are all about that. We are about ensuring the public good is recognized and maintained for all policy options.

When companies want that rate of return on their infrastructure events, it means having user fees or tolls, and those charges are always passed on to the consumer. The consumer will not have any effect on changing those user fees or tolls because they will not have a democratically elected government in charge of them anymore.

We have seen experiences where public infrastructure projects have been privatized. I think of BC Ferries in British Columbia. The whole B.C. ferry system was made into a corporation. We have seen no stop of user fees and ticket prices go up and up, making life really unaffordable for the coastal communities.

This is all coming under the context of the Liberals having hidden their true plans, and it is a fundamental betrayal of the trust of Canadians.

The term asset recycling is no more than a cover word for privatization. We have seen experiences of this in other governments around the world. For example, the right wing government of Tony Abbott in Australia tried to introduce asset recycling schemes. The Australian senate saw through the use of this language and it gutted and retitled the bill to call it “encouraging privatization”. Perhaps that is what we should be calling this bill.

I will go back to B.C. The B.C. Liberal government has become an expert in this. It sold off a ton of public assets to balance the books. To me, that is short-term gain for long-term pain.

Asset recycling will fundamentally rob future governments and budgets of the ability to regulate and generate revenue. The Advisory Council on Economic Growth was started up in March to advise the the Liberal government. The chair of this group is none other than Dominic Barton, who has spent 10 years with the McKinsey consulting group, which promotes massive private involvement in infrastructure. If that is the advice the government is getting, it is easy to see exactly what we will see in the update tomorrow.

On October 20, the Advisory Council on Economic Growth published three reports with recommendations. One of those key recommendations was that Ottawa should privatize some of its existing assets as a way of raising money to spend on other infrastructure.

The road map seems pretty clear to me: to sell off our public assets that were funded by taxpayer dollars so private interests can start generating their own revenue streams on them. This is contrary to what was promised to us in the election. The NDP can never support a bill that would sell off our communal assets to make a quick buck. It has been shown not to work. That is why we stand opposed to the bill and the general economic policy of the government.