Debates of Oct. 31st, 2016

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is important that we maintain our fiscal capacity. In Canada right now, we have the fiscal capacity to invest in our economy, to invest in Canadians, and to grow our economy.

We have committed, as the Minister of Finance stated last week, to maintain our commitments and reduce our debt-to-GDP ratio as we move along in our infrastructure program which, again, is growing our country and making sure that all Canadians who want to work have good-paying jobs.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to stand in this place and contribute to the debate on the budget implementation act. In this case, however, there are going to be some measures I will not be criticizing, such as the Liberals' favourite talking point, the middle-class tax cut.

Obviously, I would not be alone in pointing out that it seems almost unfathomable to give a tax cut to people who earn between $100,000 and $199,000, as the Liberals are doing, and to give absolutely no tax relief to those who are most in need, those earning under $45,000 per year. As much as this seems incredible, I will not criticize this measure, as it was a promise clearly outlined in the Liberals' election platform, and thus my view is that they have a mandate to make these changes.

The same applies to the Liberal child care benefit changes, as much as once upon a time the Liberals mocked our Conservative government for introducing direct-to-parent support for families, suggesting that it would be for a beer and popcorn fund. Today we know that the Liberals fundamentally supported this Conservative program, with the exception of adding a fiscal means limit for the benefits. Once again, these changes were part of an election platform, and in my view, there is a mandate from the public to carry them out.

However, beyond that, I have some serious concerns about the implementation act. For example, the Prime Minister promised modest deficits of $10 billion a year. I will not use unparliamentary language, as that is not my style. However, we all know that the Liberals have broken their promise. The only thing we do not know yet is by how much. The debt and deficit numbers seem to be growing by the fiscal quarter.

I suppose that if Canada was witnessing upgraded economic growth and increased employment, one could be more tolerant and supportive of deficit spending. After all, the former Conservative government took a similar approach. However, that approach was different in three substantial ways.

First, the spending was targeted specifically to real infrastructure and was basically targeted to shovel-ready projects. In this case, many regions of Canada are still wondering when they will see the promised Liberal infrastructure spending.

The second difference is that because the former Conservative government spent the money in the right places, we got results. Canada came out of the financial crisis atop all the G7 countries.

Finally, the Conservative economic action plan always involved a sincere commitment to return to a balanced budget, something the parliamentary budget office just confirmed would have happened for the past fiscal year had the Liberals not booked extra spending.

The Liberals promised Canadians a return to balanced budgets by the 2019-20 fiscal year, but I doubt that even Liberal MPs seriously believe that this will happen. That is my first major objection to the budget implementation bill, as it breaks the promise the Prime Minister made to get elected, and that should trouble all of us.

Another major concern I am hearing about is the proposed changes to the common reporting standard. I was fortunate to hear from a member of the finance committee earlier, the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge. Both at home in my riding and on the finance committee, credit union after credit union has warned of the very serious impact this one-size-fits-all, Liberal-imposed red tape will have on their ability to help generate economic growth and to focus on those things. To be clear, credit unions are absolutely non-partisan. The concerns we are hearing from them are very real.

I would add that credit unions in many parts of my riding, especially in smaller, rural areas, are critically important for the fiscal well-being of the community. Frankly, I am surprised that a Liberal government as obsessed with consultations and reviews to the extent this one is is turning a blind eye to this and ignoring what every single credit union, large or small, has been telling us. That is concerning and raises another interesting part in the debate.

By including measures such as the common reporting standard in the budget implementation act, ultimately the BIA becomes omnibus legislation. I am not necessarily opposed to omnibus bills. However, I would point out that this is yet another broken promise from the Prime Minister, who promised not to use omnibus bills when he was in opposition.

On the same topic of broken promises, and one could say hypocrisy, I find it curious that when in opposition and when running for election, the Liberals told us that what they view as boutique tax credits were bad, and that is why they were eliminating the fitness tax credit for kids as well as eliminating the children's arts and cultural tax credit and the textbook credit for students. Parents of students lost what the Liberals called boutique tax credits for their children, then the Liberals introduced their own boutique tax credit for teachers who buy schools supplies.

I mention this because in effect, what the Prime Minister is really saying is that Conservative tax credits that helped children and their parents pay for those activities were bad but that Liberal tax credits that help teachers are good.

On the same theme, we now know that the Liberals will force a national carbon tax on Canadians that will also increase costs for families. It is not directly related to this BIA. However, it is curious that the Prime Minister promised a new relationship with the provinces only to turn around and force unwanted Ottawa-imposed taxation on them once elected.

That brings me to another subject that is provincially related. The budget implementation bill calls for additional money to subsidize ferry services in Atlantic Canada. Over $50 million is quoted. While it is not my intent to pit different regions of the country against each other, there is a question of fairness, and I question why B.C. Liberal MPs are silent that no additional funding has been promised to help B.C.'s ferries in this budget.

One other troubling action in this budget implementation bill is the Liberal proposal to dramatically increase costs for small business. The section I am referring to is big CPP. The Liberal government believes that increasing the cost of creating new jobs is somehow a good idea. To be clear, the Liberal government proposal will also increase payroll costs for employers not just for any new jobs but also for existing employees.

What is extremely alarming is that in the last week, the CBC revealed that even internal documents, obtained from the finance minister's own department, have revealed that an expanded, big CPP, whatever we want to call it, will actually be a drag on the Canadian economy at least until 2030. Even worse, this misguided policy will actually suppress jobs until 2035.

Let us all think about that for a moment. At a time when everyone in this room knows that our economic forecasts are being downgraded, at a time when everyone knows that our job numbers are a serious concern, the Liberal government is forcing a policy on Canadians that they know will harm the economy and hurt jobs for the next 15 to 20 years. That is completely unacceptable.

Worse is that this open and transparent government is hiding these internal documents. Is it any wonder that the CFIB is strongly opposed to this policy? The Liberals clearly do not care. They are forcing these increased payroll costs on Canadians anyway. That should concern all of us.

I could continue to criticize other aspects of this budget implementation bill, and there are many. However, I believe that it is important to also point out a few points that I support. One of those is the continued support for mineral exploration tax credits. Mining is an important industry in several areas in my riding and for that matter in areas nearby in my former riding.

I also recognize the government for continuing to support the CETA deal, the comprehensive economic trade agreement with the European Union. The former government spent considerable energy and effort getting to where we are now. Trade is not only important to many employers in my riding but provides expanded opportunities for farmers and other producers. As much as a former Liberal government used NAFTA as a political chip, it is refreshing that it is not the case with CETA. Now if only we could get such a clear position from the Liberal government regarding the trans-Pacific partnership.

While there are certainly some measures in the bill I support, which I have briefly touched on, there are of course some omissions, and frankly, I remain stunned that the Liberal government continues to do nothing to better promote internal trade.

I may no longer be the critic for internal trade, but I will point out that the government is willing to impose a national carbon tax on the provinces. How could it be afraid to elevate the Comeau decision of the Supreme Court and seek clarification that internal trade is the right of all Canadians?

Not everyone supports international trade, but I have yet to meet someone, aside from, apparently, the Liberals, who does not support the principle of buying Canadian, and that means all Canadians in all jurisdictions.

When people from Europe or the U.S.A. visit Canada and hear that it is still illegal for a winery in British Columbia to directly sell to a customer in Ontario, they shake their heads in disbelief. There are a few people shaking their heads in disbelief over in the corner, and that is a good thing. I am glad to see that we all find that component contemptible.

This budget implementation act could have attempted to fix it. In fact, in the budget document, there is one word on internal trade, and that is the word “internal”. It is no secret that the former Conservative government made strides to eliminate federal barriers against internal trade, and I will continue to encourage the Liberal government to do the same.

One other measure missing from this budget, which I am sure will raise some eyebrows, is the restoration of a $10,000 tax-free savings account contribution. I mention this because it is not a secret that investment in Canada is currently on the decline. We need investment. Investment is what helps create jobs and often produces the shiny new green technologies that Liberals are often very keen to subsidize. For many Canadians, their TFSAs are invested, more often than not, in Canadian companies. Even if they are invested in savings, those savings are then loaned out to Canadian companies.

Expanding the TFSA contribution is a great way to encourage not just savings but investment. Let us not forget that all deposits going into tax-free savings accounts are net after-tax dollars. While the returns people make in tax-free savings accounts may be tax free, rest assured that when they withdraw that money, often to complete a major purchase, they typically pay sales tax or excise tax on that purchase. Expanded tax-free savings account contributions would be a great way to encourage investment in our economy.

Also missing, in my view, is any incentive to increase the supply of new housing. If we can increase the supply of new housing, we could help combat higher prices and significantly support local economies and create jobs. More importantly, if we could increase home ownership down the road, we would increase home equity, not to mention that if we could get more people out of rentals and into home ownership, thanks to new supply, that would open up the rental market and increase affordability.

There are changes in this budget implementation act that focus specifically on the Excise Act. Offering a change in the amount that is rebated, the threshold amount, would help with affordability and would have the benefit of stimulating growth, particularly in markets where growth is desperately needed.

In fact, this budget implementation act is totally silent on these points. Based on the changes the Liberals made to the mortgage rules, it is obvious that the Liberals' answer to unaffordable housing is to ensure that fewer Canadians will qualify to buy homes. Frankly, that is unacceptable. Even documents from the finance minister suggest that these one-size-fits-all Liberal-imposed mortgage changes could lower the housing market by almost 10% in the first year.

Let us not forget what that really means. It means that 10% of Canadian families who have been scrimping and saving to buy homes will be told, sorry, it is not that they cannot afford their own homes, it is that they just do not qualify under the new rules that have been put in place. This is from the government that is all about the middle class, as long as they are not middle-class prospective home owners.

Yes, Toronto and Vancouver have troubles, but these Liberal government-imposed mortgage restrictions adversely impact all Canadians. Yet Vancouver area Liberal MPs say that they were not even consulted on the changes, nor for that matter were mortgage brokers, realtors, or anyone else who makes a living in the real estate industry. I suppose the message to them is that it would be better to attend a $1,500-a-plate fundraiser with the minister next time around.

Before I close, I am going to make a few predictions. The first is that this budget implementation act, which already breaks the Prime Minister's promise of a modest $10-billion-a-year deficit, will only be the tip of the iceberg for massive amounts of more Liberal debt. I will also predict that economic growth will continue to be downgraded over the next few years. That is something we have heard at the finance committee. That is something we have heard from the Governor of the Bank of Canada. It is something we have heard from the parliamentary budget office.

I also think that job numbers will not significantly rebound, nor investment dramatically increase, yet taxes will continue to rise. Eventually, at some point down the road, some very difficult decisions will need to be made. This is where the budget implementation act is taking us, which is why I am opposing it.

I would like to thank the members of this place for taking the time to hear my comments today. We often have our disagreements. However, I know that those who come here all care considerably for their constituents, for the success of our country, and for the opportunities we can grow for our people in the short term and the long term. That is something we all take very seriously.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to hear from the member from the opposite side about the decade of darkness. They had over 10 years to act on the housing market, to make sure it was a sustainable market. Instead of ensuring that they did something, they watched that market overheat and overheat, and did not do anything. They did not even do any studying on the issue. Finally, we are faced with a tough decision of how to make sure that what the economists call “a bubble” does not happen, that we do not see a bursting of that bubble, that we can ensure that people do not lose value in their homes and lose their homes eventually, like in the United States in 2008. Therefore, I am surprised by what the member is saying, because he is essentially asking us to do nothing.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite. I certainly appreciate his contributions here and also in finance committee.

First, for a reservist to be talking about the decade of darkness and to somehow allude that it came from the previous Conservative government, I do not think is necessarily the right term to use. He knows very clearly that the decade of darkness was in the 1990s and had to do with the military.

Former minister Flaherty, and after that minister Oliver, worked very hard to work with the financial industry. We removed the ability to utilize 40-year mortgages. We brought it down to keep the market in a stable position. His is the party that has suggested to young people, “Vote for us. We'll increase growth. We'll increase opportunities for you.” However, they made it more difficult to save for a home by cutting the tax-free savings account. They have made it more difficult to qualify for a home. They have made it more difficult to pay off student debt by adding extra carbon taxes and adding on to CPP. Most of the students will not benefit from the middle-income tax cut they have offered. I think that is wrong.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have an individual in my riding who called me this last week. His name is Brian. He is a young husband, father, raising a family, making ends meet. He called and was very distraught about what he is seeing coming down the pike from this government for young families in regard to a carbon tax and CPP. He indicated that his wife is a stay-at-home mom, and wants to be that, but now they are facing the reality that she will have to go to work to try to make ends meet.

I would like the member to comment a bit more on what he sees as the hazards of this particular—

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate what the member is saying. I am hearing many similar concerns in Summerland and West Kelowna in regard to the qualification regarding mortgage. The signal they are being sent is that the goalposts have been pushed back, they would say almost indefinitely, and with little or no consultation. It seems that this is about appeasing concerns about the Vancouver market. We have heard from credit unions, and they have asked us not to do anymore market interference. The changes from the B.C. government's foreign held property tax are new, and they want to let the market adapt to that. However, the government has added more things to it.

This goes, again, to the way that the Liberal government talks and then the way it does not follow through. The Liberals talked about Canada summer jobs. They gave more money to it. They gave more jobs, but they actually reduced the amount of weeks that someone could qualify. Everyone got a little less, and they spread it out a lot more.

These are the differences. As opposition, I know it is our job to scrutinize and criticize. I want to support things happening in Canada. I want to see growth. However, let us be up front with Canadians with what is actually happening. I am concerned about economic growth. I am concerned that the plan that the government has put us on will not provide the jobs and investment we need.

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

Madam Speaker, when we look back at what the Liberal platform involved in October 2015, in last year's election, specifically on the subject of infrastructure, there was mention of the establishment of a Canadian infrastructure bank to provide low-cost financing for new infrastructure projects, and the federal government using its strong credit rating and lending authority to make it easier for municipalities to make these kind of investments.

What we were starting to hear last week, though, and I expect more details will come in tomorrow's economic update, is this new phrase of “asset recycling”. We are quite concerned in the NDP that this is opening the door to privatization of some of the major infrastructure projects that our tax dollars have funded over the years. We are concerned, of course, about the higher rates of holds and user fees that might be passed on to the Canadian consumer.

While I appreciate that the Conservative Party may have a different philosophical approach to this, I am wondering if the member could comment on the differences between what was promised in the Liberal platform and what seems to be emerging during this week's economic update.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that member is a fellow British Columbian. It is always welcome to talk about issues that are close to our province.

First, I may not always agree with the NDP. Quite frankly, when we have campaigns in my riding, usually the NDP is very firm and very principled. However, New Democrats ran on a platform, just like I did. We may have disagreements on what is good for Canada, but we both put out to the people what we think is the right remedy, given this time and space.

What we have seen is that the Liberals ran on a very clear program, and, once in office, they did not want to talk about that program as much. We have seen economic forecasts continually constrict, and now we know why. It is because the plan is not what Mr. Barton, the head of the government's own Advisory Council on Economic Growth, has said. He has put forward a program, a menu, that was not put to the people, and I think that is a tacit admission that the government is in trouble. I think all parties need to start being very clear with Canadians on where we are and what it will take.

I do not know if it is because governments become insulated or want to only see their view prevail, but I do not see that the government is going to admit that its programs, its whole stimulus of $30 billion, that it has proposed in this year's budget, is doing what it should. The government might want to use tomorrow as an opportunity to step back from that dangerous path and maybe get on to an economic program that will put us on the path for jobs and growth.

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

Madam Speaker, I am sure the member would not be surprised if I said I totally disagree with his assessment. At the end of the day, what we have seen is a proactive government that has come up with a plan that will put more money in the pockets of Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. It enhances the child benefit program. It has the most significant infrastructure from every region of our country.

I believe that Canadians understand and appreciate the degree to which the government truly cares about the economy, and we see that in the actions the government has taken. We could also talk about trade and so forth.

Would the member not agree, at the very least, that the Canadian economy as a whole is doing better than other countries around the world in economic performance, and acknowledge that there is a different approach and style of government between this government and the Harper government? We have a more proactive government wanting to see the economy do better, and, in particular, a special focus on the middle class. That was lacking from the previous Harper government.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, if the member had listened to my speech, he would know that I said there are areas, such as the child care benefit changes, as well as the middle income tax cut, as the Liberals like to call it, that were part of the platform and they had a mandate to implement that.

I would step back and say that we have projections from the parliamentary budget office that the tax cut will cause us to go into deficit. If we are reducing taxes for people who are in the $100,000 to $199,000 income range, and they end up having to pay that money back later on, it is a wash.

Going to the child benefit, all you are doing is redistributing the same amount of money but in fewer hands. Bloomberg did a study that said only 15% of that amount has actually gone out, when your government expected 50% of that to be invested in the economy.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member that when you are speaking, you need to be speaking to the chair and not to the individual members. Resuming debate.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to share my time with the member for Gatineau.

It is with immense pleasure and pride that I rise to speak in favour of Bill C-29, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures.

Our government knows that many Canadians are struggling to get ahead. These struggles are very real in my home province of Alberta, where people are continuing to face an economic downturn brought on by the extended low price of natural resource products.

The people of Edmonton Centre, and Albertans at large, asked for a partner in the federal government, and our government has responded with historic investments. It did so and will continue to do so because it knows that Alberta helped the Canadian economy for years. It is committed to helping Alberta in its time of need. It also did so and will continue to do so because it makes good economic sense at this time.

What exactly has the federal government done? It has provided $250 million to the Government of Alberta as a fiscal stabilization fund; $750 million to the EDC to assist with companies that are looking to export and provide financial services to SMEs in the oil and gas sector; $500 million from the Business Development Corporation for loan guarantees and services to SMEs directly in the oil and gas sector; and recently, another $0.5 billion from the BDC, matched by the Alberta Treasury Branch Financial corporation, to help with stressed businesses.

In addition to that, there was $307 million through the disaster financial assistance arrangement, through the Government of Canada to the Province of Alberta, to help Fort McMurray recover. That was the first time in history that the Government of Canada has moved so quickly to respond to a natural disaster in partnership with a provincial government.

There is a growing consensus in Canada and around the world that governments need to invest, not only to boost short-term economic growth, but to set the stage for long-term and sustainable growth as well. In fact, Christine Lagarde, president and CEO of the International Monetary Fund, has said that Canada's investment strategy needs to let loose, needs to go viral around the world, because our policies are smart economic policies for the long term.

Canada has the lowest debt to GDP ratio of any G7 country, and interest rates are at historic lows. Now is the ideal time for Canada to invest in its future success. That is why Canadians elected us on a platform to make historic investments in public transit, green infrastructure, and social infrastructure.

These investments mean good, well-paying jobs for tradespeople, engineers, architects, labourers, and suppliers. Each of these jobs has a family behind it, and each of these jobs mean that those families have income to support other businesses. Such investments are not only important, they are vital for Canadians and Albertans during these tough times.

That is why our government, working with the Government of Alberta, is investing $1.08 billion in public transit, water maintenance, in Alberta. That multiplier effect will mean over $3 billion in real projects taking place on the ground in Alberta. It is why we have worked with the Government of Alberta to invest $130 million more into affordable housing. It is why we have made the historic down payment on the Fort McMurray rebuilding program.

This is only phase one. This government is there for Alberta now, and will continue to be a partner in growth for all Albertans. We understand, as well, that a strong economy starts with a strong middle class. When middle-class Canadians have more money to save, invest, and grow the economy, everyone benefits. A strengthened middle class means that hard-working Canadians can look forward to a good standard of living and better prospects for their children.

Too many middle-class families are having trouble making ends meet with the tough times in Alberta. Our government stepped up to the plate and implemented the Canada child benefit, a coherent, common sense policy that will help nearly nine million Canadians every year. The time has come for the Government of Canada to help the families who need it most and give them the money they need to be able to afford to raise their children.

It is why our government created the new Canada child benefit, or CCB, which will directly help middle-class families with the costs of raising their children. I have heard it in my own riding. Time and time again, people have come up to me and said, “Thank you. I am receiving the monthly cheques. I no longer have to make the choice between food for my children or clothes on their backs. I no longer have to make the decision between school fees or paying my rent.”

Edmonton families are using the support from the CCB to invest directly in our community in a variety of ways, from enrolling their children in after school care, sports programs, music lessons, leadership activities, and even saving for their own post-secondary education. It is startling to think that some of the most vulnerable families in our community have trouble even putting food on the table.

In this country, too many children are still living in poverty.

As members already know, on July 20, eligible Canadian families started receiving their CCB payments. These replace previous benefits and provide more support to nine out 10 families in this country.

We ended the damaging legacy of the previous government's poorly thought out taxable benefit that left thousands of families with a surprise tax bill at the end of the year. I heard this at the door, that people were surprised and not happy. They were disappointed by that mis-thought-out policy.

The Canada child benefit is simple. It is tax free, and it targets the families who need it most.

Our Canada child benefit is improving the well-being of families across the country, and we are giving them an opportunity to succeed. In Alberta alone, it is raising 46,000 children out of poverty and giving each one of them the opportunity for a better life.

Now more than ever, it is important that post-secondary education remains affordable and accessible. I have four remarkable post-secondary institutions in my riding: NorQuest College; the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology, otherwise known as NAIT; the MacEwan University; and the Enterprise Square campus of my alma mater, the University of Alberta. I am so proud to represent these campuses and the tens of thousands of students who attend them.

Students must have access to meaningful work at the beginning of their careers and not be burdened by increasing student debt. In this regard, budget 2016 makes post-secondary education more affordable for students from low and middle-income families and will make it easier to repay student debt. This is enabling the economy of tomorrow. I know, because I had the opportunity to access student loans and debt forgiveness. I paid my loans back, but that made all the difference in being able to pursue my own education when my family was not able to support my tuition or living costs. That is exactly what we are doing now to make post-secondary education more affordable for more Canadian students.

We also need to ensure that we are supporting Canadians who need support right now. Therefore, Canada's employment insurance program provides economic security to Canadians when they need it most. Whatever the circumstance, no Canadian should struggle to get the assistance they need.

To make sure these systems are in place, we have proposed several changes to the EI system. Changes to eligibility rules will make it easier for new workers and those re-entering the workforce to claim benefits. To ease the burden, our government has also extended employment insurance benefits in all regions in Alberta. The waiting period will also be reduced from two weeks to one week, which will provide unemployed workers with hundreds of more dollars at the time they need it the most.

Our budget has made significant new investments to support seniors in their retirement years. Increased benefits will ensure that Canadian seniors have a dignified, comfortable, and secure retirement so that my mom and all of our parents and grandparents are supported as they age.

As a matter of fairness for all taxpayers, Bill C-29 will prevent underground economic activity and tax evasion and will combat tax loopholes. We will take action to prevent tax evasion both at home and abroad. The government will invest in effective administration and enforcement of tax laws and will propose actions to improve the integrity of Canada's system.

Hard-working small business owners who create jobs and benefit the economy are the ones who need, and should be benefiting from, tax measures. Our efforts will improve the fairness and integrity of the tax system and contribute to fiscal sustainability. That is exactly what Albertans expect from us.

Finally, Canada's financial sector is world renowned and remained stable through the 2008 financial crisis and its aftermath. We have the last Liberal government to thank for putting the fundamentals in place for the most robust financial system in the G20. To keep Canada's financial sectors strong, the government will strengthen the framework that regulates financial institutions, and we will balance the need for stability and competition with the needs of consumers and businesses.

Bill C-29 also makes it clear that the shareholders and creditors of Canada's largest banks are responsible for their risks, not taxpayers. In this way, Canadians will not be stuck with the tab in the event of an economic shock.

The measures set out in this budget are essential to the proper development and well-being of all Canadians, including those who need it most, and that is why I am asking all of my colleagues in the House to vote in favour of Bill C-29.

Again, our budget is delivering on the needs of Albertans and Canadians. We were elected on a promise to increase prosperity for all Canadians, and that is a promise we are proudly delivering on.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, the eloquence and quality of my hon. colleague’s presentation are truly excellent. They were excellent as well during the election campaign. In his own speech, he himself raised the fact that the Liberals had promised a whole series of things in their latest plan, in the last election campaign, and one of those things was to incur just a little deficit of $10 billion over three years.

The first thing we found out, and are now realizing, is that that little $10 billion per year is mutating, not into $15 billion, not $20 billion or $25 billion, but $30 billion, maybe even $35 billion. Some observers are even talking about $40 billion for the first year.

Does my colleague consider that making promises during an election campaign and not keeping them afterward is a way of respecting all of his fellow citizens and Canadian voters?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

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

It should be noted, now that we form the government of Canada, that our approach ensures that our economy will experience full growth. That is what is behind all of our planning.

Our two strategies, our two main themes, are to invest in our economy with historic infrastructure investments, and to provide impetus for and increase the number of immigrants we invite into our country.

It is important not to forget that the ratio of our deficit to our nearly $3-trillion economy is among the lowest in the world. We are going to ensure that that ratio will continue to fall. That is what we will be talking about, and that is what we will be delivering to Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, during the election, we had 12 community debates in my riding of Kootenay—Columbia. In every one of them, the Liberal candidate talked about how the Liberal Party, if elected, would lower the small business tax rate from 11% to 9%.

Small businesses make up almost 95% of the businesses in Canada and are very important in my riding and across Canada.

I would like to ask the member, what happened to that promise? Should a promise made during an election not be kept once a party is actually in government?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think what is important to note, and it is interesting that you had 12, and I think we had 13, and one of the things—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the parliamentary secretary to address the answers and questions to the House.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Yes, Madam Speaker.

What was important in our campaign, and since, is to make sure as a government that the ratio of our deficit to the size of the economy remains among the lowest in G7, and certainly in the G20.

What is important is that we continue investing in small businesses.

As my hon. colleague knows, the more money we have in the pockets of middle-class Canadians, the more they will spend in their local economies and the more that will feed small business. We know, as well as the hon. member, that small businesses are the backbone of our community and our country. We will continue investing in programs that will benefit small businesses from coast to coast to coast.

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

Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada, in the last number of months, has increased the GIS, amended the CPP agreement, and decreased the age of retirement from 67 to 65.

Would my colleague comment on seniors and how they have benefited under the government thus far?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, it was important to us in the campaign and has been since we have been in government to make sure that we provide for the middle class, including seniors. After listening to Canadians for two years before the last election, it was clear that some of the most vulnerable Canadians are seniors. That is why we increased the GIS provisions for the most marginalized and poorest Canadian seniors; why we also made historic changes the to CPP; and why we are very committed to making sure that seniors, including my mom, aunts, and uncles, are able to retire in dignity across the country.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Edmonton-Centre for sharing his time with me.

As always, it is an honour and a privilege to represent the citizens of Gatineau in the House. It is a great honour for any parliamentarian to represent the views and perspectives of their fellow citizens.

It is my great pleasure to add my support to Bill C-29, a second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures.

Last spring, our government tabled its first budget. On the whole, this is a budget that respects and keeps our election commitments. Furthermore, it is based on judicious investments to make our economy grow, to better help our middle class, and to ensure that our communities and our country continue to grow. Bill C-29 is also a follow-up to the plan of my hon. colleague the Minister of Finance, the plan for economic growth and fairness in Canada.

This bill provides measures that will help families, provide seniors with greater flexibility, protect consumers, and improve the fairness and integrity of the tax system.

When working-class and middle-class Canadians have more money to save, invest, and grow the economy, everyone benefits. That is why, in budget 2016, the government decided to invest in the Canadian economy to set the stage for long-term growth. Canada has the lowest debt to GDP ratio of any G7 country and interest rates are at historic lows. Now is the ideal time for Canada to invest in its future success: in our young people, in our communities, and in ourselves. When we have an economy that works for the middle class, we have a country that works for everyone.

My colleagues opposite spoke of the pressure on families. We all have in our ridings families looking for more flexibility, for help making ends meet every moth, and for ways for their children to have an equal opportunity to succeed in life, go to university and take part in sports, art programs, recreational activities and so forth.

Speaking of investments, we on this side of the House put in place what is probably the most important social innovation of the past 10 or 20 years in Canada: the Canada child benefit. On July 20, families in Gatineau received their first Canada child benefit cheque, as announced in budget 2016. In the riding of Gatineau alone, the Canada child benefit is helping 10,600 families and 18,480 children.

The average monthly payment in Gatineau is around $520. That is $520 every month, tax-free, that can be used for food, skates, clothes, child care expenses, school supplies and more. That is $520 every month that goes back into the local and national economies.

On this side of the House, we are extremely proud of this social innovation, this benefit for the middle class, the parents in my community and all across Canada. It is the most important public policy in decades.

Moreover, under Bill C-29, the Canada child benefit will be fully indexed to inflation starting in 2020. This will ensure not only that this important measure will be sustainable, but also that benefits will rise every year starting in 2020.

The budget implementation act also supports our seniors by helping them to retire in more comfort and with dignity. In budget 2016, we repealed the provision in the Old Age Security Act that increased the age of eligibility for old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits from 65 to 67, and allowance benefits from 60 to 62, over the 2023 to 2029 period. Budget 2016, also increased the guaranteed income supplement top-up benefit by up to $947 annually for the most vulnerable single seniors, starting in July 2016.

I do not know if it is the same for my colleagues, but I get asked by seniors what it means to have $80 more than expected at the end of the month. They ask me what that means for seniors on a fixed income and for their quality of life. Well, it helps them pay the rent and buy groceries, and it may even give them the means to take part in sports and other recreational activities, for example. That is very important at their age. I get comments like this a lot, as do all my colleagues in the House, I am sure.

This measure represents an investment of over $670 million per year, and will improve the financial security of about 900,000 single seniors across Canada.

That is not all. In this second budget implementation bill, we are delivering on the solemn promise we made in budget 2016 to support senior couples who face higher costs of living and are at an increased risk of poverty because they must live apart. We are all aware of cases where, unfortunately, because of health concerns or for other reasons, spouses are separated from one another because one of them has to be institutionalized.

When couples who are receiving the guaranteed income supplement and the spouse's allowance have to live apart for reasons beyond their control, each of them will receive benefits based on their individual income.

For seniors in such a situation, it will mean an average increase to household income of $3,500 per year. That is very important for our most vulnerable seniors, who will be treated more fairly and receive more help from the government through the guaranteed income supplement. These new measures enable the government to treat seniors with greater fairness and allow them to live with dignity in retirement.

Canadians deserve financial consumer protection that keeps pace with their needs. We have seen this debate all over the world in the wake of the financial crisis. Bill C-29 would amend the Bank Act in order to strengthen and modernize the financial consumer protection framework. The financial sector plays an important role in supporting economic growth. Canada's financial sector weathered the 2008 financial crisis well because it was built on solid foundations. The government is seeking to build on this strength.

Bill C-29 amends the Bank Act to consolidate and streamline provisions that apply to a bank or an authorized foreign bank in relation to the protection of customers and the public. This was another consumer protection commitment our government made in budget 2016 that will contribute to the financial security of Canadians.

The federal government is showing leadership by adopting targeted measures to better protect consumers of financial products. Regarding the tax system, our government committed to implementing an action plan to combat international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance.

All these measures contained in Bill C-29 or in the budget deliver on our commitment to get Canada's middle class back on its feet and make it once again a priority for the Government of Canada.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, during the election, the Liberals said that they would invest in Canadian infrastructure. That is on page 15 of their platform. During the last couple of weeks there have been reports suggesting the Liberals are considering selling off some of our public infrastructure, such as airports, bridges, and ports, which were not mentioned in their platform.

Since budget 2016, the government has mused about asset recycling and flywheel for reinvestment. What do the Liberals mean by these fancy words? Is it to privatize our public infrastructure?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, the commitment we made during the campaign was to double infrastructure spending to about $120 billion over 10 years, compared to the $65 billion mentioned or promised by the previous government. That is what we are going to do.

In communities from coast to coast to coast, including in Gatineau, we are starting to feel the effects of our basic infrastructure spending in social housing, recreational infrastructure, and so on.

Our platform also included the possibility of increasing our infrastructure spending through an infrastructure bank or some other alternative funding mechanism. The goal was to offer Canadiens other ways to fund strategic infrastructure in order to increase exports, create jobs, and boost trade.

I hope we will continue this debate.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on an excellent speech. He reminded the House about all of the promises the Liberal government made and has kept, promises relating to youth, seniors, the middle class, and economic growth.

Can my hon. colleague talk about the impact those promises have had on youth, seniors, growth, the middle class, and job creation in his riding? I am sure he can share many examples from his riding because the Liberal plan is all about growth.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Maurice—Champlain.

Gatineau is a very dynamic city. It is constantly growing, and its population is younger than average. Its needs reflect that. The fact is that we have a growing need for basic infrastructure, such as roads, water and sewage, and waste water treatment.

The infrastructure investments our government will be making in partnership with the Government of Quebec and our municipal partners will enable us to meet the needs of a steadily growing community like Gatineau.

As a demographically young community, Gatineau has families and middle-class families with young children, all of whom benefit greatly from the Canada child benefit. For example, hockey and gymnastics clubs and our cultural associations will thrive because children will have more opportunities to participate in various activities. With an extra $520 or so per month tax free, parents will be able to invest in their children. This measure will help them make ends meet.