Debates of Oct. 31st, 2016

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2

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

Madam Speaker, I think there were a great many Canadians who were disappointed on how the New Democratic Party voted on the budget issue, and this is a budget implementation bill.

If we look at finances, we see a movement toward the equalization of the distribution of wealth. For example, there is a substantial increase in taxation for Canada's wealthiest and a substantial decrease for Canada's middle class of hundreds of millions of dollars, which will affect nine million Canadians. We are seeing thousands of the most vulnerable seniors being lifted out of poverty through the GIS. Through the Canada benefit plan, thousands of children are being lifted out of poverty.

For all intents and purposes, I and many would argue that this is a very progressive budget. Therefore, could the member tell members of the House and his constituents what budget was more progressive than this budget, and why the NDP would vote against it?

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

Madam Speaker, with the budget implementation bill being an omnibus bill, there were a number of items we agreed with, but there were also a lot we did not. The problem with bills like this is that they have to pass the House in their current form. Therefore, because there were those poison pills in the budget, we could not support it.

With respect to the tax breaks, we agreed to raising the tax rate for people who earned over a certain amount. It was the so-called middle-class tax cut, because the true maximum benefits for that came into effect for people earning between $89,000 and $200,000 a year. As I have stated in the House many times, that was the equivalent of every single Liberal member of Parliament giving themselves a tax break. However, when the median income in Canada is $31,000 a year, the constituents in my riding get nothing. I did not come to the House to give myself a tax break, and I certainly stand by my decision earlier this year.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to seize upon the question just asked by my Liberal friend from Winnipeg, who seems to assess the progress and nature of budgets by how big their deficit is. Certainly, burdening our future with the debts of today is not progressive. I would contrast this, and the hon. member touched on it in his speech, with the fact that in the last election the NDP tried to offer a plan for the future that was not just runaway deficits. Also, a number of the tax provisions the Conservative government provided for low-income families, particularly cutting the GST, which consumed most of the lowest income level earners household income, would be progressive.

In reference to what the member for Winnipeg North just asked, suggesting that the Liberals' budget was the most progressive in history, is that just from their running a deficit? I noticed he mentioned that the Liberals liked to run as the NDP in elections and then govern in an entirely different way. Would the member comment further on that?

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

Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to go over our electoral platform for the benefit of all members in the House.

The NDP is often asked how it will pay for these things, but no mention is ever made by the Liberals or the Conservatives about the current low corporate tax rates. That fits in nicely with the infrastructure programs I talked about earlier. A large number of the infrastructure that exists in Canada has been funded by the taxpayers. A lot of that infrastructure, such as the bridges and the rails we have built, benefit corporations because they are able to move their goods efficiently.

However, the fact is that we have put all that public money into that infrastructure and we still have a very low corporate tax rate. Therefore, what we argued in the NDP was that corporations, particularly the very wealthy ones, should pay a bit more to ease the burden off the rest of society. For far too long, we have had this trickle-down economic theory where we think that if we lower the corporate tax rate to these really low levels, somehow all of this money will magically trickle down to the lower classes. Instead, as the former governor of the Bank of Canada has pointed out, the corporate bank accounts are simply swashing full of millions of dollars right now, which is dead money not being reinvested into the Canadian economy. We asked for fairness, and that was what we ran on.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-29, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures. I am also pleased to rise today so I can express my complete disappointment with how the bill has been introduced and the structure of the bill.

Bill C-29 is 234 pages, has 146 clauses, and would amend 13 pieces of legislation. How is this bill supposed to get proper review, study, and consideration? It simply will not, and the government know that and it is counting on that.

This kind of behaviour comes from a government that either has something to hide or does not want the public to know what it is up to. I suspect that a government which has not lived up to its promises on so many fronts, such as electoral reform, on the relationship with first nations, on meaningful reform to the Canada pension plan, and on its commitment to help the workers and former workers at U.S. Steel Canada is now finding it is necessary to hide its real intentions, and that is to fudge the facts, invent new and meaningless buzz words, and obscure the truth.

I need to take a moment to speak about what is to me an unfolding example of the government's desire to mask its real intentions behind a wall of rhetoric and doublespeak. I refer to the government's plan to privatize public infrastructure by selling off public assets and creating a new infrastructure bank to monetize future infrastructure projects.

As a former city councillor, I know about the dire state of our local infrastructure. I know about the lack of assistance for municipalities to help fund vital infrastructure rehabilitation. I have also seen the effects of both the federal and provincial governments downloading the costs for infrastructure projects onto the municipalities. This has helped create a staggering crisis.

No one should be fooled by the government's plan for infrastructure. The Liberals plan to privatize. No one should be fooled about what this means. It means user fees. It means toll roads and toll bridges. It means downloading the costs onto me, other members and all our constituents.

The finance minister's advisory panel on economic growth issued a report, and we expect some of its recommendations in the minister's economic statement tomorrow. Among those recommendations were the following: first, develop a focused federal infrastructure strategy which is in line with the government's economic growth agenda; second, create a Canadian infrastructure development bank to leverage institutional capital and deliver over $200 million with the projects over 10 years; and, third, create a flywheel for investment by catalyzing the participation of the institutional capital in existing assets.

We all know and agree that there needs to be new investment in infrastructure. Canadians from coast to coast have been calling on the federal government to take meaningful and substantial action for years. However, we are concerned by reports of the Liberal plan to privatize our infrastructure.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has expressed some serious concern that the government will take money that has been promised for housing and local projects and instead put it into its new infrastructure bank. That would mean less money for local priorities. That would mean less money for communities that were counting on addressing urgent infrastructure needs.

There are also reports that suggest the Liberals are moving ahead with plans for selling off existing public infrastructure, like airports and bridges. Having failed to sell their privatization schemes by calling them asset recycling, they have now invented the new term, “flywheel for reinvestment”. Do not be fooled. This is just a new word for privatization. Why do the Liberals want to sell off the valuable infrastructure that hard-earned dollars of Canadians have built? To pay for their budget shortfalls. This is just another example of the government trying to keep its promises from and then trying to use sleight of hand to fool Canadians into thinking otherwise.

The bill before us today is just another example of how the government is trying to pull the wool over our eyes. The bill is far too big and far too complex, and the time allotted for debate is far too short to allow for the in-depth consideration and discussion that a budget should receive.

We have discovered, however, that the bill does contain some positive measures that the NDP has fought for, but it comes nowhere near what the Liberals have been promising, and nowhere near what is necessary to strengthen our economy and to combat inequality.

We are disappointed that the Liberals have decided to let the value of the new child benefit erode over the next four years, taking the equivalent of $500 away from families. We wanted to see more aggressive action to ensure tax fairness, including more to combat tax evasion by multinational corporations, and to close the stock option loophole for wealthy CEOs. It is also unacceptable that the Liberals are making adjustments to eligibility for small business taxes without restoring the promised tax cuts for small businesses.

Canadians were hoping for better from the current government. Many people have been left shaking their heads wondering why the government, which promised change, is acting like the Conservative government.

I can tell members that people in my community are shaking their heads, especially the 25,000 workers and retirees of U.S. Steel Canada, who thought that the current government would stand up for them through the bitter corporate restructuring currently taking place. Instead, we have seen a government and a Prime Minister turning their backs on the people of my community. This is a Prime Minister who, during the election, promised to do everything he could to help, but has left our pensioners and workers out in the cold.

One year after the election there has been not a word from the government or the Prime Minister about providing any help at all. It is shameful, and the people of Hamilton are not soon to forget. People in my community expected better, but like all Canadians, they have been left shaking their heads.

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

Madam Speaker, I am sorry the member feels as if the Prime Minister has left his constituents out. I can tell him that the Prime Minister has done no such thing. We have a Prime Minister who is committed, in a very significant way, to assist and work with Canadians with unprecedented consultations and policies that will make a difference for the everyday living conditions of all Canadians.

The member may want to reflect on some of the initiatives taken. We can talk about the tax breaks for the middle class, the additional tax on Canada's wealthiest, the Canada child benefit, the increase in the GIS, and many other initiatives that have been taken by this government in one year, which will do well for his constituents and in fact all Canadians.

Would the member not at the very least acknowledge that we have seen more done in the last year than we had in the previous 10 years under the Harper government?

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, yes, we have seen a little bit of positive change, but not what was promised when the Liberals rolled out their promises. Almost everything they promised to change has been watered down.

If you look at your child tax benefit—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the member to address his comments to the chair.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

If we look at the child tax money that the Liberals have handed out, they now do not even want to index it at the rate of inflation for another five years.

If we look at the Canada pension plan enhancement, people are surprised that it will only help future retirees and does not do anything for people now, or for people who are out there on disability, or for those who have been raising their children and do not get credit for having done so, because they did not make contributions.

To finish my answer, yes, there have been some changes, but they are watered down changes, and we expected better than that.

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

Madam Speaker, in my previous life I was mayor of a community called Cranbrook, and one of the burdens that our taxpayers ended up living with was a failed public-private partnership. A new recreational complex was built in Cranbrook, a public-private partnership that failed. The city ended up having to buy out the private partner, and we were locked into about 15 years' worth of loans at 8% that we could not even borrow money to pay down, because the loans were locked in.

What are some of my colleague's other concerns about privatization of infrastructure? It certainly was a failure in Cranbrook.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, there would not be enough time to say what happens when governments partner with private companies. Most of time when we join with private companies, they seem to get the bigger benefit and the public side always seems to get the shortfall. In Ontario, we paid millions and millions of dollars for Highway 407. Then it was privatized and all of a sudden its owners are making millions of dollars, which we said we could not do. I am having some difficulty with any kind of privatization, but if it is going to happen, we have to make sure that it will be of benefit to Canadians and not just to corporations.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Mount Royal.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to two aspects of budget implementation act, 2016, No. 2. This bill makes significant amendments to the Canada Disability Savings Act and the old age security program.

At first glance, these two programs seem to be different. However, they have the same goal, namely to ensure that the most vulnerable Canadians enjoy a good quality of life and live with the dignity they deserve.

First of all, I would like to remind the House that the Canada Disability Savings Act governs how the grants and bonds provided by the government are paid into registered disability savings plans, or RDSPs.

RDSPs were created in 2008 in order to help people with disabilities and their families save in order to provide long-term financial security. Canadian residents who are entitled to the disability tax credit can open a RDSP until the end of the year in which the recipient turns 59. Parents or guardians can open an RDSP on behalf of a minor. There is no annual contribution limit, but the lifetime limit is $200,000.

The gains accumulated are tax free until withdrawn from the RDSP. The government contributes to the RDSPs of eligible recipients by providing grants or bonds, or both, up to a maximum amount.

The bill being debated today would amend the Canada Disability Savings Act. These changes are required because the act refers to the Canada child tax benefit. As all members know, that benefit was replaced by the new Canada child benefit last June. Every year, the amount of the grant or bond that the recipient is entitled to is calculated on the basis of adjusted family income.

With regard to RDSP benefits for youth under the age of 18, this adjusted income, the amount used to determine the government's contribution in the form of a grant or bond, was also used by the government to calculate the amount of the Canada child tax benefit. Since that benefit no longer exists, we need to amend the provisions of the Canada Disability Savings Act that mention that benefit. We also need to amend the provisions that mention “phase-out income”.

As members know, the amount of the bonds decrease for those with higher incomes. The threshold at which the bonds start to decrease is called the “phase-out income”. It is important to understand this concept because the formula used to calculate the phase-out income includes the Canada child tax benefit.

As a result, the following three consequential amendments will be made to the Canada Disability Savings Act. First, the references to the Canada child tax benefit in five provisions of the Canada Disability Savings Act will be replaced by references to the new Canada child benefit. Second, the definition of “phase-out income” will be changed to include the Canada child benefit income threshold in the formula. Third, the definition of “child tax benefit” in the definitions section of the Canada Disability Savings Act will be removed since it will no longer be necessary.

Thanks to these amendments, the income thresholds for eligibility for the Canada child benefit and the Canada disability savings bond will be harmonized. The increase in the income threshold will produce a slight increase in total payments made for the bond in the RDSP of persons with disabilities. Persons with disabilities are not the only group that needs additional government assistance. The income security of our country’s seniors is another government priority.

That is why we will be formulating provisions to help Canada’s seniors enjoy a good quality of life. Seniors are important members of our society, who contribute actively to the well-being of their families and of our community, as well as to the growth of our economy. We have one of the lowest rates of senior poverty in the world.

In 2013-14, the most recent year for which data were collected, the Government of Canada paid Canadians over $79 billion under the Canada pension plan and old age security. These programs have contributed greatly to reducing the low-income rate for seniors over the last 30 years. However there still remains a great deal of work to do.

In 2014, the most recent year for which data were collected, 3.9% of the country’s seniors were living below the low-income cut-off established by Statistics Canada, representing some 200,000 people. Nearly 80% of these low-income seniors, or the vast majority, are single, and most of them are women.

That is why we have also increased by $947 per year the amount paid as the guaranteed income supplement to low-income single seniors. This measure will support the most vulnerable seniors who depend almost exclusively on their old age security pension and guaranteed income supplement, and who are thus at risk of experiencing financial difficulties.

Similarly, this measure will improve the financial security of some 900,000 seniors all across Canada, and we estimate that it will help lift nearly 13,000 of the most vulnerable seniors in Canada out of poverty.

We already support senior couples, in cases where the two members of the couple are receiving the guaranteed income supplement, have high living expenses, and are at high risk of poverty due to the necessity of living apart, for example, when one of the spouses is forced to live in a nursing home.

In some senior couples, one partner receives the guaranteed income supplement and the other the spousal allowance, but they have to live apart for reasons beyond their control, such as one of them needing long-term care. We are in the process of amending the Old Age Security Act to ensure that such couples receive higher benefits based on each individual's income.

I would like to point out that the allowance is paid to people 60 to 64 years of age with low income whose spouse or common-law partner receives the guaranteed income supplement.

Our government also reversed the decision to increase the age of eligibility for old age security from 65 to 67, which should come into effect in 2023. That change will give low-income seniors up to $17,000 per year. With these key measures, we will provide essential support to the most vulnerable Canadians.

The Government of Canada cares about seniors. Canadians work tirelessly their whole lives. We should all have a chance to live into old age without worrying about making ends meet. That is why our minister was given a mandate to improve income security for low-income seniors. These measures are how we are keeping that promise.

We promised to help more Canadians escape poverty. To me it is unimaginable that in a country like Canada there are still people who are unable to meet their basic needs. This is unacceptable and we doing something tangible to correct this situation.

I believe we all agree that no one should grow old in poverty or isolation. I cannot emphasize enough how important this issue is to our government.

I would also like to take a moment to discuss the Canada pension plan, another important pillar in our retirement income system. Retirement income security has to start with solid and stable public retirement plans such as the Canada pension plan.

We are also working with the provinces and territories to strengthen the plan. Earlier in October, we introduced a bill to amend the plan in order to help middle-class Canadians achieve their goal of living a dignified life in retirement with guaranteed income security.

We are making a considerable investment in the well-being of seniors. Canadians who work hard contribute to our society throughout their lives and our government believes that every Canadian deserves to grow old with respect and dignity.

Laurentides-Labelle has more of an aging population than most other ridings. The 2011 census found that the average age in the riding was 49.5. I look forward to the results of the 2016 census, but I would be surprised if the average age had not risen considerably.

Seniors' issues are crucial; we must improve their quality of life without delay. We can always do more, but I think we are on the right track with this bill and with this budget. Canada has always been a leader when it comes to delivering services to seniors. Our retirement income system is considered one of the best in the world.

I strongly urge my colleagues to help make sure it stays that way by supporting this bill.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to repeat in English what the hon. member said in French about senior citizens and the changes that are being made to allow senior couples, who have to live apart for reasons that are no fault of their own, to be spared having money come off the seniors' supplement. One party is earning money but they are not living together, which increases their costs.

I met a lot of couples like that in the election where one spouse was in a retirement home because they were too sick to live with their spouse. I was just wondering if my hon. colleague also had similar experiences in the election and met couples who were affected by that measure.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, my own family was affected by this. My grandparents lived in adjacent units in Lac Saint-Louis, I think it was that riding, for the last couple of years of their lives.

We see the reality of the situation. It is very important that we take care of our seniors in every possible way that we can.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his very detailed presentation speech on some of the measures that are contained in the bill, which is close to 234 pages long. I am disappointed that it is being presented in this way and that we are not having enough time to really give it proper consideration and study.

I would like to share with my colleague my disappointment with one part of the bill; that is, the decision not to index the child benefits over the next few years. Actually, the indexing will not happen until the next federal election. That will have a bigger impact on low-income families, which are the majority of families in my riding.

I wonder if you would agree with me that was a bad decision and that indexing should happen sooner, not in the next election.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member to address the questions to the Chair and not to the individuals.

The hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for drawing our attention to this very good program that, at least in my riding, is expected to help about 4,000 people out of poverty. It is an incredibly important program. It is an incredibly progressive program. I am really proud to support it. I am looking forward to the future changes that we make as we go forward.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a simple, common-sense question for my colleague. How does he explain the difference between a modest $10-billion annual deficit and a $30-billion annual deficit? How does a government member explain to the people of his riding, who placed their trust in him, this change in attitude once his party took power?

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have no problem explaining that. I believe that the deficit exists everywhere you go: it exists in our infrastructure, in our society, and in our government. Personally, I want us to invest in the future of our country, in our infrastructure, in all the programs that we need to implement. I do not want to ignore those things in order to achieve a certain number. I want to invest, and that is what our government is doing.

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

Madam Speaker, my question is with regard to the whole issue of consultation. I met an interesting individual, Kourosh Doustshenas, who had raised an issue with me. I want to ask the member what he thinks of consultation and the importance thereof.

For example, this individual talked about the homebuyers' plan and how it has helped close to three million people since 1992. He believes that the government needs to take a look at that particular program.

I wonder if my colleague would just talk about the importance of consultations.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, for just over a year now we have consulted. My riding is a huge riding. I have 43 municipalities and 300-and-something city councillors. In my office, we met with all of my city councillors, my seven chambers of commerce, my four regional development agencies, every organization we could find to get their input, and that consultation is what fed our ability to contribute to this process.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order, please.

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Essex, Dairy Industry; the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan. Infrastructure; and the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou, Veterans Affairs.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Mount Royal.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today on this second act to implement certain provisions of the budget.

Many of my colleagues who were former municipally elected officials would join me. As mayors and councillors, we frequently passed budgets that were in the $50-million range and, in some cities, in the $1-billion range, like the regional government in Montreal, and yet meetings were very sparsely attended. There may have been one or two people in attendance to see a $1-billion budget pass and yet if there was a meeting on a dog run, there would be 400 people. The reason is that it is very difficult to understand bills that consist of 243 pages and go into very minute financial detail. It is not sexy, but it is important.

I am proud of the budget that we delivered earlier this year and I am pleased to talk about this bill, as well as the investments that the Government of Canada has been making to keep Canada and its people strong and growing for the long term.

This second budget implementation act proposes items that would complete the implementation of outstanding measures from the Government of Canada's first budget. As a government, and as the MP for Mount Royal, I am proud of our first budget. It put people and families first. It introduced investments that were an essential step to grow the middle class, such as, of course, the improved family allowance. I was particularly happy to see it targeted at families who needed it the most on a tax-free basis. This is the first step of a long-term plan to restore hope and revitalize the economy for the benefit of all Canadians.

This is a budget and a plan, by the way, that not only resonated with many Canadians but is garnering international praise as well. The Financial Times called Canada a glimmer of light. The Wall Street Journal called Canada the poster child for the International Monetary Fund's global growth strategy. Christine Lagarde, head of the International Monetary Fund, praised our approach as well.

The Economist magazine has put Canada's approach on its cover, with a story entitled, “Liberty moves north”. It stated, “the world owes Canada gratitude for reminding it of what many people are in danger of forgetting: that tolerance and openness are wellsprings of security and prosperity, not threats to them”. Our budget earned endorsements because we, as a government, are focused on the right things. We are focused on people, growing the economy for the long term, and doing so in a way that should benefit every Canadian.

Canadians deserve financial consumer protection that keeps pace with their needs. In line with this, budget 2016 contained plans to strengthen and modernize our financial consumer protection framework. Budget implementation act, 2016, No. 2, a very sexy title, would amend the Bank Act in order to strengthen and modernize the financial consumer protection framework.

Canada's financial sector weathered the 2008 financial crisis well, but we are seeking to build on this strength. We want to make sure the financial sector is able to adapt to new trends, including emerging financial innovation and technologies that would challenge existing business models, evolving consumer preferences and customer relationships, changing demographics, and continuing globalization.

Budget 2016 proposed to modernize the financial consumer protection framework by clarifying and enhancing consumer protection in the Bank Act and to work with stakeholders to support the implementation of this framework. This legislation proposes to consolidate and streamline existing consumer provisions into one new chapter of the Bank Act and introduce amendments to the Bank Act to enhance consumer protection in the areas of access to basic banking services, business practices, disclosure, and complaints handling, as well as corporate governance and accountability.

The federal government is exercising leadership by taking targeted steps to strengthen financial consumer protection. This includes measures to improve access to basic banking services and enhance disclosure to facilitate informed decision-making by consumers. These reforms would reaffirm the federal government's intent to have a system with exclusive rules for consumer protection to ensure an efficient banking system from coast to coast to coast.

As part of an international effort to combat tax evasion, budget 2016 confirmed the government's intention to implement the common reporting standard developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Under the common reporting standard, Canadian financial institutions would be expected to have procedures in place to identify accounts held by non-residents and to report information on those accounts to the Canada Revenue Agency. Tax administrations in foreign jurisdictions would likewise collect information from their financial institutions about accounts held by residents of other countries, including Canada. The CRA would formalize exchange agreements with foreign jurisdictions, having verified that each jurisdiction has appropriate capacity and safeguards in place. Then the financial account information would begin to be exchanged on a reciprocal, bilateral basis.

The introduction of the common reporting standard is an important global development, which will help enhance tax compliance and eliminate opportunities for tax evasion. Canada intends to implement the standard, consistent with our commitment to the G20 and similar commitments by more than 100 other jurisdictions.

The budget also announced plans to implement a new requirement for country-by-country reporting. This is an initiative agreed to under the G20/OECD project to address tax avoidance by multinational enterprises through base erosion and profit shifting. Under these new rules, large multinational enterprises would be required to file with tax authorities information providing a high-level profile of their activities in each jurisdiction where they operate. These reports would enhance transparency and assist tax administrations in performing effective risk assessments.

Going forward, Canada will continue to work with the international community to ensure a coherent and consistent response to tax avoidance.

In addition to these new legislative tools, budget 2016 also announced $444 million in new resources for the Canada Revenue Agency to address offshore tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance.

Budget 2016 represents a step forward in our plan to put people first and to deliver the help they need now, while investing for years and decades to come. With these investments, and inspired by a sense of fairness, we are ensuring that Canada's best days lie ahead. Our plan is about creating the necessary conditions to ensure that hope and hard work will not be wasted but rewarded, where our children and our children's children can flourish. The Government of Canada is focused on the larger picture of ensuring prosperity for Canadians well beyond our 150th birthday.

There are so many times I look at the House and wonder whether partisanship can ever be overridden. I was so proud earlier today when the government congratulated the official opposition on the way it negotiated the CETA treaty when it was in government. Both acknowledged the other party's steps in advancing the treaty, working to put it forward, and getting it ratified. That was the House at its best. All of us should always strive to be at our best in the House. The budget implementation bill is something we should all look forward to supporting on a non-partisan basis.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, as a newer MP, my colleague has a great attitude as far as working together is concerned, but there are certain realities that we have to face. Coming from Oshawa, a manufacturing community, I recognize that even though we want to work together, sometimes we have to face certain realities when we are competing with our biggest competitor right next door. The Americans do not have policies such as state or federal carbon taxes. They are not increasing their payroll taxes, as we know the government is doing. He knows as well that we are saddled in Ontario with the highest electricity rates in North America.

I am wondering about his thoughts on our international competitiveness. If we start putting these policies forward, as former prime minister Mulroney was quoted as saying over the weekend, we should not foolishly put ourselves at competitive disadvantage. Is there anything he sees coming forward in their budgets that are going to compensate for those non-competitive policies that have been put forth by the Liberals?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Oshawa for his kind remarks at the beginning of his statement.

Former prime minister Mulroney is a fine man. I have had the pleasure of meeting him on many occasions, and while I disagree with his comments in this case, I think he also has a very open mind to look at things in a fair-minded way. We all have to do that.

I disagree. The budget is actually putting forward measures that would enhance Canada's innovation and would ensure that Canada is able to compete on worldwide basis. I also agree with my colleague that we need to look at each and every measure. We need to ensure we are on a level playing field. We cannot go to either extreme.

Government has a role and so does private industry. We have to work together to make them thrive. Therefore, while we may disagree on this point and on carbon pricing, on the whole, we agree in principle that government has a role in the economy, but so do other parts of the economy, including, very importantly, private business.