Debates of Nov. 1st, 2016

Fall Economic Statement

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to recap a few of the things my colleague mentioned.

He mentioned rural development, the middle class, investment in the Canada hub, and public transportation, Then he talked about attracting foreign investment. He said that Canada is a great place to invest. It is a safe place. I could not agree more.

However, I would like to ask my colleague why his transport minister, for nine months, has been sitting on a report, the Emerson report, which clearly recommended that we increase foreign ownership levels for low-cost carriers to come into Canada to provide transportation to secondary airports, one of them being the Region of Waterloo International Airport in my riding.

I wrote a letter in June and have asked questions in the House why we are sitting on this report and not allowing foreign investors to invest in Canada to provide better service for Canadians, to provide low-cost service for Canadians. There is radio silence on this issue.

My request is this. Just get out of the way and allow these private industries to create the jobs they want to create and provide better service in Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we recognize that the minister the member is referring to is doing his job, and he is doing a fantastic job.

We have airports scattered all over the different regions and all sorts of discussions take place. The minister has a responsibility to listen not just to one individual member of Parliament, but also to the different municipalities and other stakeholders to get a better understanding of all of the different aspects. It does not necessarily happen overnight.

I would like to assure the member that, for the first time in many years, we not only have a cabinet minister but also a government as a whole that understands that the best way to move forward is to make sure that we are doing our homework and getting the job done right. A part of that means that we should be working with the different stakeholders before we make a decision that could backfire if we acted as quickly as the member might like us to work. We want good, sound decisions to be made.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg North is entertaining as usual. He is not really addressing the concerns or answering the questions that I put forward in my speech.

We know that this infrastructure bank, Canada's infrastructure bank, was never mentioned by the Liberals in their election campaign. They deliberately led Canadians to believe that they were going to invest public money to improve infrastructure. Canadians believed that $120 billion in public money would be invested. They thought that the small deficit promised by the Liberals would pay for the new infrastructure.

On the contrary, they are trying to privatize our infrastructure. I would like to know if the member from Winnipeg North and his Liberal colleagues believe that they would have been elected had they promised to privatize not only infrastructure but also their revenue streams.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I actually did listen to the member. One of the things he indicated is that he read from the Liberal platform, which includes a commitment of $125 billion toward infrastructure, I would point out.

I thought the member would be standing and applauding the government because not only did we meet that requirement and that promise of $125 billion, but we have actually expanded it to $180 billion-plus over the next 11 years.

I thought the member would appreciate that we are listening to the many different stakeholders that are saying, “Are there other alternatives?” Why would we have to say, “Absolutely not” to different cities or municipalities, or “Absolutely not” to different provinces that want us to explore other avenues?

The issue of infrastructure and investing in infrastructure is far too important to stay on one narrow scope that the NDP wants us to do. After all, we are spending more money than the NDP would have spent.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question that I wanted to pose to the Minister of Finance. I hope my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, will not mind if I put it to him. It is a concern I have about where government spending will occur.

On page 67 of the projections, it says that “Compared to Budget 2016, direct program expenses are projected to remain largely unchanged in 2016-17 but are projected to be higher over the remainder of the forecast horizon”, because of “employee future benefits”.

My concern is this. The previous government cut deeply into many programs. We have not reversed the pain and the loss of those cuts. For instance, 10% was lost from Parks Canada's budget. It is not as though everything is okay and we build from here. We have damage to repair, and I do not see the damage being repaired.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could give the leader of the Green Party a more precise answer. I know there were a lot of people who wanted to ask the Minister of Finance a question after he delivered his speech, but there was limited time. Obviously, we could pass the question on to the Minister of Finance so the member might get a more fulsome answer. But suffice it to say that through the Prime Minister and the mandate letters, I suspect that many of the issues mentioned in them refer to areas that were cut by the Conservatives, and that the cabinet would in fact be reviewing them, and where those could be rectified, they would be.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have heard several times today, particularly from the NDP, how we never mentioned this during the campaign. Even as they quoted from the campaign platform, they said it was somehow not mentioned, even though it is right here in black and white. I can read it again because I ran on this and talked about it endlessly in the riding I represent. Here is what it says:

We will direct the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the new Canada Infrastructure Bank to provide financing to support the construction of new, affordable rental housing for middle- and low-income Canadians.

One of the most spectacular projects in the city of Toronto is a public-private partnership that is rebuilding Regent Park, a project started by a New Democrat. The same thing is happening in Alex Park in my riding. In these projects, they take public assets and partner with the private sector. As a result they get more affordable housing. There is a user fee. It is called rent.

When we have such a successful model, why would we abandon it and try to build less, that is, unless the goal is not to build housing, which is exactly what that party did when it collapsed the 2005 budget for housing under Mr. Martin?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very good question, and I would suggest to my friend that there seems to be a difference between the national New Democratic Party and what New Democrats do elsewhere throughout the country.

I referred to the NDP government in Manitoba and how it did not seem to have a problem with some role being played by the private sector in infrastructure. In fact, it brought in legislation to ensure that there would be more accountability and transparency and so forth on the issue. I think it is more exclusive. The attitudes of the provincial government might change upon new leadership. It is hard to say.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to our hon. colleague's speech. He talked about investment in Canada and the historic investment they are making to make Canada more attractive for foreign investment, and getting goods and services to other markets. I want to talk about the investment the member said never happened in his own riding in Winnipeg, and how hard it was.

I want to take the member back to 2009 when the Harper government committed over $1 billion to the Asia-Pacific gateway. As a matter of fact, it was 2006 to 2015. Over $218 million was spent in that member's riding alone for the Asia-Pacific gateway's CentrePort. It was through the Asia-Pacific gateway and corridor initiative that Canada was back on the stage, because we signed over 43 trade agreements.

However, I want to ask this of the member. Today's announcement would do nothing for the tens of thousands of Canadians who are out of work today. It would do nothing. They do not need more EI; they do not want that. They want jobs. This is nothing for them today. Investing in infrastructure over 11 years will not help them today.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if they were in government for 10 years, they were bound to spend some money on infrastructure. I do appreciate the monies that were spent, but the point is that never before have we seen this type of investment in infrastructure as we have under this particular government.

There are lots of things in this budget that are helping people today. I referred to the 72 projects that have been approved in the province of Alberta, which are going to generate jobs today for individuals. The tax cuts are actually in place. They are benefiting people, and that is money in the pockets of the middle class today. The Canada child benefit plan is taking tens of thousands of children out of poverty today. The GIS increase is taking tens of thousands of single seniors out of poverty today. There is a lot of good news in this budget. The member should support it.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I begin my speech with an admission that I was wrong. When the finance minister presented his budget in the spring and said he was going to add $113 billion in new debt, I thought that not even this profligate group of over-spenders could achieve something so monumental as that. I went out and said they were simply trying to inflate the numbers so they could come back later and say that it was not as bad as they had said, that they had beaten their outrageously terrible expectations. Today, I admit I was wrong. Not only are they adding every bit as much debt as they said they would, but they are adding even more.

I am here today to talk about the enormous debt and the higher taxes they are burdening Canadians with. However, before I do, let me address the logic on which they base all of that debt and spending. That logic is that if we borrow enough and tax enough, we can use the money raised to stimulate enough economic activity that they will be able to pay it all back from. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, trying to borrow and tax our way to prosperity is like trying to lift ourselves into the air by standing in a bucket and pulling up on the handle. Every bit of force upward on the handle is matched by increasing force downward on the bottom of the bucket. As a result, we do not get anywhere, even though we expend all kinds of energy doing it. That energy of course is represented by the monetary value of all the taxes and debt the government is adding to the burden of Canadians.

Let us review the facts. In the last election, the Liberals promised $26 billion worth of deficits over their mandate. Today's numbers show that the total debt accumulated over their mandate will be more like $143 billion. They are not tripling their deficit projections. They are actually quintupling the amount of deficit they promised they would burden Canadians with during the last election.

They said the annual deficit would be $10 billion. We now know it will be $30 billion. They said in the budget that there would be a $6 billion contingency fund. Remember, the budget was only in spring. They added a $6 billion contingency in spring, and in fall, they have already blown it. In fact, they have eliminated that contingency for the rest of their mandate. Let me quote from the former parliamentary budget officer. Kevin Page said just today, “We lost the contingency…. Now it’s gone, we spent it. And we have this $130 billion of additional debt”. A government creates a contingency and blows it within six months.

Finally, they said their budget would be balanced within the mandate, that there would be small, short-term deficits in the early days of a Liberal government, but by the time Canadians go back to the polls in 2019 they would have a balanced budget. Now we have a document before us today, presented by the finance minister, which does not even promise to balance the budget, ever. There is not even a target date to return to balanced budgets. The furthest date out for which we have any numbers is 2021-22. In that year, they are still projecting a $14.6 billion deficit. That is what they project now, without any additional spending they will add in the next five budgets. Does anyone believe that in the next five budgets, the next four budgets, the next three budgets, the Liberal government will add no new spending at all? If the Liberals did not add any new spending, the best we could hope for is that in 2022 we would still have a $14 billion deficit. That is the track they have put us on, and for what?

They told us that all of this spending was going to stimulate the economy, that all the money would go into our neighbourhoods and communities, and that people would spend more and build more and hire more and there would be more growth and more hiring. What has happened?

According to these documents, growth is actually down since this deficit spending binge began. In the last year, since the Prime Minister took office, we have not seen the creation of one net new full-time job. In fact, it is worse than that: 6,000 fewer people are working full-time than when the Prime Minister took office. There are 20,000 fewer manufacturing jobs, despite a low dollar. That runs against the expectations of everyone: the Bank of Canada, the finance minister himself. I even believed that despite the government's policies, a low dollar would mean a resurgence in manufacturing, but 20,000 fewer people work in that sector today. That does not even touch on the 40,000 fewer jobs in our energy sector.

The blue collar working family in this country is being clobbered right now. They have been devastated, despite the fact that we have a government that claims that its deficit spending is specifically designed to create jobs for those very people.

We have added more debt. The Liberal government has increased taxes on the people who create jobs, and the Liberals are spending money they do not have on things that we do not need. The result is that fewer people in Canada are working than when they took office.

They will claim that it is not their fault, that it is all external factors that led to these terrible outcomes. Well, they cannot blame it on the previous government, because the numbers I am citing are all numbers that come from the year in which the current government has been in power. Nor can they say that it was just the trajectory of things when they took office. According to the parliamentary budget officer's report, the last five years of the previous Conservative government saw an average annual net increase in jobs of 200,000, and almost 100% of them were full-time.

We have seen about 100,000 jobs created in the last year, and 100% of those are part-time. As I said at the outset, there has not been a single net new full-time job created in the country since the Prime Minister took office.

They cannot blame it on a faulty trajectory, where things were headed in a bad direction and the Liberals inherited it and are trying their best to turn it around. In fact, the trajectory was in the opposite direction. There had been over one million net new jobs created in the last six years of the previous Harper government, and under the current government, there has been no full-time job growth. Nor can he say that it is just the way things are going around the world. The trend line of Canada's job growth is worse than in the United States, the G7, and the OECD, according to the parliamentary budget officer's recent report. As a nation, we are underperforming compared to our peer group over the last year. Job creation was chugging along up until the Prime Minister took office, and then it slammed straight into a brick wall.

However, I do not want to be strictly negative, because I believe that there is nothing wrong with Canada that cannot be cured by what is right with Canada. What is right with Canada? Our entrepreneurs are right with Canada. They are the ones we know will generate the jobs Canadians need. Scotiabank came out with a report just two weeks ago demonstrating that basically all the job growth Canada saw in the previous half decade was from small and medium-size enterprises. How can we empower them to further create opportunities for our people?

First, we can honour our commitments to them. The previous government announced reductions in the small business income tax rate. The Liberal Party said it was a great idea. They were going to put it in their platform. When they took office, they cancelled those tax cuts. There is still time to do the right thing, get back on track, and reenact those tax reductions so that our job creators have more money with which they can hire.

Second, we can lower the cost of hiring. How can we do that? We can cancel planned increases to payroll taxes. Payroll taxes by definition are an increased cost in hiring.

In fact, a briefing note supplied to the finance minister when he was in the development phase of his planned CPP payroll tax increase said that such an increase would do two things. One, it would make it more expensive to hire, and two, it would make it less rewarding to work, and the combined impact of these things would lead to less employment. It makes sense. Tax hiring and work, and there is less hiring and work.

The positive corollary of that is that if we cut taxes on work and hiring, there is more work and more hiring. That is what we propose the government do.

There is still time, before all these new payroll taxes kick in, to cancel them and proceed with reductions in employment insurance premiums, which had been budgeted by the previous government. It was a major reduction from about $1.80 on $100 earned to $1.40, which is a very large reduction. It is a 20% reduction in the EI payroll tax. That reduction would help small businesses afford a larger payroll. More of their money would be dedicated to paying wages for hard-working people and less would be for paying government. I think we all agree that working-class employees are more deserving of that money than are the voracious appetites of government.

Cutting payroll taxes is a second hopeful idea we can pursue to empower our entrepreneurs to hire more.

Third, we can continue to reduce red tape. Under the previous government, we brought in something called the red tape reduction action plan. That found that there were 400,000 rules the federal government alone was imposing on small business. Let us imagine that. We eliminated 80,000 of those rules. We systematically got them out of the way working with business groups, like the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

We relieved much of the federal paper burden, but there is still more work to be done. I pledge to work with the government to do it. Let us all commit to relieving businesses of the burden of paperwork so that they can spend all their time creating jobs and delivering the best possible products at the lowest price to Canadian customers.

Those are the things we can do to empower our small-business job creators, who we know are going to supply the jobs that young people, the impoverished, and disabled workers are going to benefit from in the future.

In addition to small business, we can change our tax and benefit systems across this country to make work pay. In various jurisdictions of this country, if people leave social assistance to get a job, they are actually worse off. They end up paying more in tax and losing more in clawbacks than they gain in wages. It is, in effect, having a tax rate of over 100%.

The NDP leader said that it was legalized theft for wealthy Canadians to pay more than 50% of their income in taxes. Frankly, I believe that no one should pay more than 50% in taxes, but most of all, we should never accept the idea that a disabled person or an impoverished person would lose more than 100% of what they gained from working. That is an effective tax rate of over 100%. It means that people are better off financially if they do not work, yet that is the case for literally thousands of people across this country, depending on their particular jurisdiction. The combined burden of federal and provincial clawbacks and taxes punishes work and makes it impossible for people to escape from the poverty trap governments set for them.

I think we, all of us, need to put aside any differences we might have in party line or level of government to solve this problem once and for all. We are currently studying this very problem at the human resources committee as part of an overall study on poverty. Our principle objective there should be to find ways to make work pay.

Finally, another hopeful idea that would help create more employment is to stop spending money we do not have. We know that increased debt only drives away investment, because it creates an impression of fiscal difficulty, and it signals not only to Canadians but to the world that there will be higher taxes down the road.

Everyone knows that debt today means taxes tomorrow. Whatever we borrow, we have to pay back, plus interest, so why spend money we do not have? Doing so is not only fiscally irresponsible, it is cruel. Every dollar we spend that we do not have will have to be taken away from a much-needed program or taxed away from a deserving worker or small-business person down the road.

Let us get our spending under control. Return to the balanced budget we had just a year ago so that we can lead the world again as a beacon of fiscal responsibility and investors from around the world can come to create jobs and opportunity for our people.

At the end of the day, we have to recognize that government cannot give people anything without first taking it away. There is no free money. There is no money tree. There is no source of dollars the government has that no one else has. It only gets money from the people who work hard and pay taxes.

At the end of the day, these are the people for whom we should work and fight every single day in this House of Commons. They are the people who pay the bills, who take care of their families, and who build our communities. If we leave a dollar in their pockets, they do more and better with it than politicians and bureaucrats could ever do.

I take that message of hope, of opportunity, of free enterprise to our friends across the way in the government and ask them to embrace these ideas, which we know work and which we know can make our country stronger and better for the future.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity earlier to congratulate the finance critic for the official opposition on his address, and I thank this member for his address as well. Hopefully I will do better with him than I did with the finance critic.

When we arrived in office, we inherited a technical recession. We inherited anaemic growth, or among the most anaemic growth rates in the western world. We inherited over a hundred billion dollars in cumulative borrowing from that government, which took a structural surplus from Paul Martin and turned it into debt. Yet that party ran on a platform of balancing the budget at all costs.

We ran on a platform of investment in the economy. I would ask this member, as I asked the finance critic before him, if he can he be very specific. Given the state of the economy that was left to us, what would they do to balance that budget? Would they cut, and where would they cut, or would they tax, and who and what would they tax?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member accuses the former Conservative government of wanting to balance the budget at all costs. He is part of a government that is determined to run a deficit at all costs and that has exerted extraordinary effort to achieve it.

What is the result? There are fewer jobs. Where are the jobs this deficit was supposed to buy? We have 6,000 fewer people working today in full-time work than when the Prime Minister took office.

He talked about the middle class. He said they inherited a terrible situation for the middle class. Actually, under the previous Conservative government, medium incomes were worth more than under the previous six governments combined. Where did I get that fact? It is in the very first chart of the very first Liberal budget. I encourage him to read that chart.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I respect the hon. member's work and his insight.

To address the comments from the member across the floor, we had the best growth in the G7, 1.2 million net new jobs, tax-free savings accounts, the children's fitness tax credit, and a tax credit for arts, and we did all that with a balanced budget in the last budget.

We keep hearing about all the investment in infrastructure, but today during question period we heard that there is one project, one shovel in the ground.

There is nothing in this presentation today about rural Canada and about rural Canadian communities. I ask my colleague how devastating this announcement today, with the additional spending, will be for some of the rural communities across the country.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government has announced that it will impose a $50-a-tonne carbon tax on Canadians. We know that will be devastating for our entire economy, but it will hit certain people particularly hard.

First, it will hammer low-income people. Why? Because they spend a third more of their income on the things that will go up in price: fuel, food, electricity, etc.

Second, it will hurt people in rural communities, to speak to the member's question. I know he represents a proud rural southern Alberta community that believes in and elected him with a massive majority. People in his community will suffer from this carbon tax, not only because it will hammer the energy industry that employs people, but because they will have to travel long distances to get to their work, because they have to drive combines in order to cultivate our food, and because they have to expend energy in order to create wealth and opportunity in their communities.

These people will be devastated, but not if we can help it. We will stand up everyday and fight against this carbon tax to defend people like his constituents.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques told us that infrastructure privatization could be one of the consequences of creating the proposed infrastructure bank. That could translate into user fees and toll roads.

Does the member agree with me that tolls and user fees would be an added burden for the poor in our society?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, private sector involvement in public infrastructure is nothing new. It has been done around the world and in Canada, in fact. The Canada pension plan has invested in highways in Canada.

The Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec is involved in a major public transit infrastructure project in British Columbia.

The Canada Line is partly owned by the Quebec pension plan. Therefore, this is nothing new.

What is new is this bank. I have a lot of questions, quite frankly, about how this bank is going to turn out. The government is talking about loan guarantees for foreign investors and investment bankers. Therefore, the profit of these infrastructure projects will go to the private sector company and all of the risk will go to Canadian taxpayers. If the project does not generate the revenues promised, taxpayers foot the bill. However, if the project is profitable, then these international investors will get all the money. That is what the Liberals mean when they talk about public-private partnerships. The public gets the costs and the risk and the private sector gets all the profit.

In a true free enterprise economy, risk and reward go together. Any attempt by businesses to put the risk of their investments on the backs of taxpayers should be aggressively resisted.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives piled $150 billion onto the debt, so it is curious to hear them talk about how bad debt is when they were so good at producing it. Even without a recession, they went into deficit before the meltdown of 2008.

I have a question on the infrastructure bank. I think we all recognize that a bad deal is a bad deal and should be avoided at any cost. However, is the Conservative Party really saying that it is going to oppose this initiative to create an infrastructure bank, even though we know that in many cities across the country it has generated even more infrastructure than the initial spend would indicate? In other words, are Conservatives going to fight the infrastructure bank or are they going to support it?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the devil is in the details, and because the hon. member is afraid of the devil, he avoids the details altogether.

We do not know exactly what this infrastructure bank is going to look like. He says that it is already creating jobs, but it is not even set up yet, so I am not sure exactly how that is possible.

Let us see what the Liberals produce with this new proposal. We will be watching very carefully to ensure that the interests of Canadian taxpayers are protected and that it is not just another Liberal give away to the super rich, which is something they are very good at.

We will also be advocating on behalf of small business people, like Charles Schachnow, who owns a window business in Ottawa. He creates jobs for people right across this city, while providing excellent service to customers. Higher taxes on Charles Schachnow means fewer people working for his window installation company. The reality is that the government is going to hit him and his business with carbon taxes, higher small business taxes, and higher payroll taxes.

I believe Charles is actually better at spending his own money than the Liberal member is at spending it for him. We on this side will keep fighting for taxpayers and small business people like Charles, while the Liberal member across the way keeps fighting for big government.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the most exciting components of today's announcement is this infrastructure bank and the notion of what it might be able to accomplish where traditional spending may fall short.

I represent a riding that has a significant amount of public housing. This public housing is currently being revitalized through a public-private partnership. During the campaign, a number of New Democrats started to criticize this model, only to be told by the low-income residents to get out of the neighbourhood, that if they would not support revitalization, why should they even be talked to as candidates?

The challenge was this. We know there are public assets that lie dormant in land. We know there are public dollars that can only go so far in paying for the total revitalization of communities with 600 and 700 units. However, we also know that when we reconfigure the land, assemble the public assets, and put the public dollars in play with private partners, magical things can happen.

One of the most magical thing that happens is we end up with new housing for low-income communities and new housing for new arrivals into the city. The city's tax base grows and people are housed properly. What also happens is that the profits are leveraged back into the housing project to deliver more new units of housing. This is being done with great expertise in the city of Toronto, relying on private sector operators to partner with public sector assets to deliver new housing.

If the infrastructure bank can do it in one project in Toronto, it can do it in dozens of projects right across the country. It is critically important that we not put 100% public dollars into public housing, because it will not build enough quickly enough to accommodate the needs and pressures we face as a society.

There is a user fee attached to public house, and it is called rent. That rent continues to be subsidized by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to make it affordable for people living in the city. However, what also has happened, as we have continued that subsidy, is that people have a way of moving into better and better housing, and in doing so, they start to participate in the economy in a whole new way.

The member opposite just talked about a window maker. One of the other things we are doing with this infrastructure bank, and we are doing it with the green infrastructure fund in a similarly constructed model, is that we partner, for instance, on the Tower Renewal in Toronto. We take private assets, like 1960s apartment buildings, and we fund, with a loan guarantee, the replacement of the windows to make them more energy efficient.

The private sector, having gotten the capital up front and paid it back with operating savings, does a couple of things. It improves the quality of housing and cuts greenhouse gas emissions, making them more energy efficient as well as reaching out to the private sector and giving jobs to people about whom the member opposite is so worried. There are a lot of new windows being replaced in a lot of old buildings with a one-time expenditure of a loan guarantee, and that delivers the economic opportunity we are looking for.

Therefore, I am very proud to say that during the campaign we ran on this. We promised it, we talked about it, and it is in our platform in black and white. Today what we have done is realize it.

We would think the NDP in particular would be happy that additional investments are being made in infrastructure. I cannot for the life of me understand why those members would want to collapse things like Regent Park, Alexandra Park, Lawrence heights, 250 Davenport, which are four projects I can see within shouting distance from my constituency office.

Why would NDP members say that there should be no private sector involvement in projects like that, even though it is alleviating poverty, reducing greenhouse gases, and providing new housing and new housing opportunities? I hope they can see their way through to supporting the new infrastructure bank and stop with the fearmongering.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 5:39 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Fisheries Act

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

moved that Bill C-228, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act (closed containment aquaculture), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to formally introduce my private member's bill, Bill C-228, an act to amend the Fisheries Act, closed containment aquaculture.

I would like to thank my seconder, the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith. I would also like to thank my colleagues who have told me they plan to support my bill.

The bill would protect wild salmon by requiring B.C. salmon farms to transition from harmful open net pens to safe closed containment systems within five years of the bill becoming law. It is silent on the type of technology, but it must meet the definition of a closed containment system.

The bill would require the minister to create a transition plan within 18 months of the bill receiving royal assent.

Wild salmon are in trouble on Canada's west coast, and Canada is uniquely positioned to become a world leader in closed containment salmon aquaculture.

Wild salmon, like so many other species, are under threat from climate change and habitat loss, but wild salmon in particular are under threat from disease, including sea lice, pollutants, and other harmful substances coming from open net salmon farms.

I, like so many other British Columbians, have a personal connection to wild salmon. They are an iconic part of our past, present, and hopefully, our future.

I have been working to protect wild salmon for over 25 years. In 1995 and again in 2000, I swam the 1,400 kilometre length of the Fraser River, one of the world's greatest salmon rivers, to draw attention to the threats facing this mighty river and its salmon.

In 1997, in recognition for my work to protect salmon, the Squamish nation bestowed me with the name Iyim Yewyews, which means black fish, orca, or strong swimmer in the animal world. It is an honour and a huge responsibility that I stand here today to continue the work to protect wild salmon.

Wild salmon are a keynote species in B.C. to our economy, our environment, and our culture. Commercial fishermen, sports fishers, and first nations fishermen depend on salmon for their economic livelihood. Recreational and sports fishing contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to our economy and provide unforgettable experiences that so many families cherish. Salmon feed our incredible forest. Grizzly bears and eagles drag their carcasses into the forest, nourishing the soil and providing nutrients and nitrates.

Canadians know the impacts from one industry should not negatively impact another, yet that is happening. Salmon aquaculture, a much smaller industry, is negatively impacting a much larger wild salmon industry. Let us compare.

Wild salmon support a $102 million commercial fishery on the west coast that employs about 1,400 people. They support a $325 million recreational west coast fishery that employs about 8,400 people. They also fuel a $780 million west coast wilderness tourism industry that employs more than 40,000 people. That is over $1.1 billion and about 50,000 employees. Compare that to the B.C. aquaculture industry, which the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance says is responsible for some 5,500 jobs, with only 2,400 of those being full-time. The industry generates about $475 million in exports.

There was a day when the number of salmon was so great they could not be counted. It was said that one could walk on the backs of salmon to cross rivers. Now the returns are greeted with fear and anxiety.

Historically, Fraser River salmon runs topped 100 million. Now a run of 20 million is considered exceptional. In the last few years, we have witnessed some of the worst returns in recorded history. In 2009, just over a million Fraser River sockeye salmon returned to spawn. triggering a judicial inquiry led by Justice Bruce Cohen. Sadly, this trend has continued, with indicators showing the 2016 salmon run will most likely be the worst return in recorded history.

Justice Cohen concluded:

...the potential harm posed to Fraser River sockeye salmon from salmon farms is serious or irreversible. Disease transfer occurs between wild and farmed fish, and I am satisfied that salmon farms along the sockeye migration route have the potential to introduce exotic diseases and to exacerbate endemic diseases that could have a negative impact on Fraser River sockeye.

Canada is not alone in experiencing the harsh realities of impacts from open-net salmon farms. Norway, Chile, and Scotland have all had problems with impacts of the salmon farming industry on their wild fisheries, leading to a decline in wild salmon populations and in some instances aquaculture collapse. The problems include: diseases from sea lice like infectious salmon anemia, ISA, and heart and skeletal muscle inflamation, HSMI, spreading to wild salmon; feces and waste feed damaging ecosystems; and escaped farm salmon interbreeding with wild populations.

Sea lice are naturally occurring parasites, but they are intensified by open-net salmon farms. In B.C., many of these open-net salmon farms are located right on the wild salmon migration route, creating the perfect storm for transmission of sea lice and deadly disease. As wild juvenile salmon leave the mouth of the Fraser River, they swim by these farms. Parasites from the farms latch onto them, sucking the life out of them and hindering their growth. This makes them more susceptible to be picked off by predators, thus continuing their decline. If we continue on this path of open-net salmon farms, scientists say it is only a matter of time before disease spreads to our entire wild salmon population.

Earlier this year, DFO scientist Dr. Kristi Miller confirmed the presence of HSMI by testing Atlantic salmon samples collected between 2013 and 2014 from a B.C. fish farm located in Johnstone Strait. The finding further raises the alarm that action must be taken to prevent the spread of this deadly salmon disease.

While I commend the government for its endorsement of the precautionary principle and its renewed commitment to implementing the Cohen commission recommendations, I call on the government to turn its words into actions. The precautionary principle recognizes that, in the absence of scientific certainty, conservation measures can and should be taken when there is knowledge of a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the environment and/or resources, using the best available information. Under this principle, the trigger for government action to protect wild salmon is for the science to demonstrate the existence of more than a minimal risk. The science is clear, the risks are real, and the diseases are present. It does not make much sense to let a much smaller industry, open-net salmon farms, destroy the much larger wild salmon industry. This was recognized by Justice Cohen in his report. Recommendation 3 reads:

The Government of Canada should remove from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' mandate the promotion of salmon farming as an industry and farmed salmon as a product.

We cannot sit back and continue to watch the decline of wild salmon, especially when we have such clear scientific evidence showing us the problem and such promising technological innovation showing us the solution. The solution is closed-containment technology, and if we act now, we can become a world leader.

Closed-containment systems involve a physical barrier, a solid wall between wild and farmed salmon, eliminating the negative impacts of open-net salmon farms. By transitioning to closed-containment technology, the industry would eliminate its impacts on wild salmon, allowing it to grow and the wild salmon economy to thrive. We are making strides across Canada in closed-containment salmon production, with Kuterra leading the way in B.C. and Sustainable Blue in Nova Scotia. In fact, in B.C. there are already more than 70 licensed closed containment finfish farms growing salmon, tilapia, crayfish, and trout.

Kuterra, which is 100% owned by the 'Namgis First Nation, is a fully operational closed-containment fish farm on northern Vancouver Island. Kuterra produces 400 tonnes per year of antibiotic-free, hormone-free, and non-GMO Atlantic salmon. It employs five local people full-time, plus contractors, and it supports fishing, processing, distribution, and sales jobs in Port Hardy and in Richmond, B.C.

In Burlington, Nova Scotia, Sustainable Blue is a privately funded, world-leading facility. It is now ready for the production of 100 tonnes of closed-containment salmon this year, aiming to expand to 150 tonnes or more next year. As with Kuterra, the fish are free from infection, so there is no need for antibiotics or chemicals. Sustainable Blue's waste-management system recycles what open-net farms dump into the ocean. It collects and stores the fish feces on the farm, which are later transformed into fertilizer for agricultural production.

The federal government needs to act now to encourage this trend. It must stop allowing the harmful open-net salmon farm industry to use the ocean as a toilet, a dumping ground for chemicals, toxins, and disease. Other countries are already taking up the challenge. We cannot afford to be left behind by not mandating a transition to closed containment.

In Norway, which is the largest producer of open-net salmon in the world, the government is investing in closed containment, in collaboration with industry. They have already begun to make the switch.

In Denmark, Danish Salmon is capable of producing 2,000 tons of closed containment salmon annually. Langsand Laks, in Denmark, is supplying customers with weekly harvests year-round. This year, it plans to harvest 2,000 tons, and next year, it is aiming for 4,000 tons. Danish investors are now exporting this technology to the United States. They are building a massive closed containment facility south of Miami, Florida, aiming to produce 30,000 tons of farmed salmon annually.

We cannot let other countries get ahead of us. We have a golden opportunity here in Canada, but we need to act now, be bold, and realize the potential of closed containment salmon aquaculture. We can start by supporting Bill C-228 and mandating the transition to closed containment on Canada's west coast.

Why would it be on Canada's west coast? It is because we are ideally located beside the ocean, with excellent growing conditions for salmon, and we have a well-trained workforce. I have consulted and sought support from industry, the commercial and recreational fishing sectors, first nations, academics, scientists, business leaders, labour groups, environmental organizations, the B.C government, and the public for my bill. Thousands have rallied behind this bill. They have signed petitions online and on paper. They are contacting their members of Parliament, asking them to vote their conscience and protect wild salmon.

Endorsements continue to come in, and the list is as diverse as Canada itself. It includes business leaders like Yvon Chouinard, the founder of Patagonia, Jim Lawley of Scotia Fuels, Tony Allard of Wild Salmon Forever, and independent fishermen and chefs right across Canada.

It includes renowned environmentalists David Suzuki, Alexandra Morton, and Mark Angelo; first nations leaders, like Grand Chief Stewart Phillip and Chief Bob Chamberlin; the First Nations Wild Salmon Alliance; the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, the First Nations Summit, and BCAFN.

It also includes industry associations, like the Sport Fishing Institute of BC, the B.C. Federation of Fly Fishers, the B.C. Federation of Drift Fishers, and the Fraser River Sportfishing Alliance; conservation organizations, like the BC Wildlife Federation, the Steelhead Society of BC, the Atlantic Salmon Federation, Watershed Watch Salmon Society, and the Outdoor Recreation Council of BC; trade unions, like UFAWU-Unifor, CUPE BC and UFCW local 1518; academics and scientists, like Dr. Rick Routledge, Dr. Andrew Wright, Dr. Lawrence Dill, and Dr. Marie Clement, to name a few.

I have even received support from Stanley Cup champion Willie Mitchell, and as many members have seen, an online video endorsement from the captain himself, Canadian actor and icon William Shatner.

This bill offers members a clear choice. They can either stand with wild salmon and the people who depend on them, and stand with progress, technology, and innovation, or they can remain mired in the status quo, impeding progress and putting wild salmon at further risk.

If we ignore the science and do not embrace closed containment technology, we not only risk taking advantage of our opportunity to become world leaders but we endanger a globally significant species. A collapse of wild salmon will lead to further job losses in coastal communities and will undermine first nation culture. That is why the majority of first nations in British Columbia are strongly opposed to open-net salmon farms.

Let us learn from one of the greatest ecological tragedies in Canadian history, the collapse of the northern cod. Let us not repeat the same mistake on the west coast. We cannot afford to sit back, make excuses, and not take action. We cannot let the impact of a smaller industry destroy the much larger wild salmon economy.

We can choose a healthy future for wild salmon and the people who depend on them. We can choose to expand new economic opportunities for rural, first nation, and coastal Canadians by embracing closed containment technology. We can choose to revitalize our salmon by protecting them from the threat of disease from open-net salmon farms.

I ask all members of the House to support this bill.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am taking this opportunity to—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Order. I would like to inform the member that we are still on questions and comments for another five minutes. Then the member can give his speech.

Does the member have a question?

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is an ardent defender of aquaculture-related issues that affect his region in British Columbia. Like his part of the country, New Brunswick has aquaculture sites in places like the Bay of Fundy, where people raise certain species of salmon. In my riding, we are mainly in shellfish, such as oysters and mussels.

Getting back to salmon, aquaculture is a very important Canadian industry that generates an enormous amount of revenue and creates jobs.

Does my colleague believe that if all aquaculture is done in closed containment systems, that could hurt British Columbia's aquaculture industry? We know the industry is a huge job creator and revenue generator for the province. Does he believe that, with closed containment aquaculture as the only option, the economy in his region and his province will suffer?