Debates of Nov. 1st, 2016

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Madam Speaker, we campaigned on revitalizing our economy and economic growth. There are studies across the board by economists suggesting that the best way a government can instill economic growth is to do two things. One is through innovation, which we are doing, and the other is through infrastructure. We think the infrastructure bank is a great idea, and Canadians recognize that as well.

Our partners at the provincial and municipal levels recognize there is a huge infrastructure deficit across our country from coast to coast to coast. This is going to make it easier to address those concerns. We are going to get people back to work. We are going to build Canada. We are going to ensure that middle-income families have more resources to get them back home on time, because we are going to invest in transit, we are going to build roads, and we are going to build bridges.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Brampton East for all his remarks this morning and all his hard work in his riding.

He spoke at length this morning about the budget implementation act. I wonder if he might take a moment to elaborate on the positive impacts of the middle-class tax cut that was implemented as part of budget 2016, as well as the Canada child benefit plan.

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Eglinton—Lawrence for the question. This young man is doing a great job in his riding. He is being a very accessible member of Parliament. We could all learn a thing or two from him.

His question is a very important one, especially on the tax cut. Nine million Canadians have more money in their pockets today because of our government. The Canada child benefit is helping nine out of 10 families. When I went door-knocking in August in my riding of Brampton East, the first thing people did was thank me very much for the extra help. They said they were very happy about the Canada child benefit because it really made a difference with back-to-school shopping and buying the necessary supplies for their children—new clothes, new backpacks—and putting an extra apple in their lunches.

This is about helping families become better, join the middle class, and stay in the middle class and investing in Canada across the board.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to debate Bill C-29, budget implementation act, 2016, No. 2, the Liberal government's first budget, which was much criticized and the source of much disappointment.

This budget implementation bill addresses many issues. Given that it is more than 250 pages long, I will focus on just a few of its elements, such as the OECD country-by-country reporting implementation announced in budget 2016. A number of other countries are participating in this project, which will fight tax evasion, a crucial issue.

I will also speak a little about the Canada child benefit, which was changed a bit in the budget implementation bill in response to some harsh criticism. Finally, I will try to speak to the principle of asset recycling, which was announced in the budget. This term is synonymous with Canadian infrastructure privatization.

Let us talk about country-by-country reporting. As I said, the idea comes from the OECD and has to do with multinationals that do business around the world, of course, through numerous subsidiaries. Unfortunately, some unscrupulous accountants and tax experts strive to make a living from getting around tax rules and finding the best way for multinationals to avoid paying their fair share of taxes in countries where they nonetheless benefit from public services and infrastructure, such as highways and airports. They also benefit from the money of taxpayers and employees who live in those countries. They do not pay their fair share of taxes and manage to evade the tax system.

Country-by-country reporting ensures that the subsidiaries of a same multinational whose annual revenues are 750 million euros or more are subject to new rules. Some experts criticized this threshold saying it was too high. Seven hundred and fifty million euros annually is a substantial amount. It is estimated that between 10% and 15% of multinational companies around the world meet this criteria. In other words, 85% of businesses will not be subject to these new rules since their revenues do not reach this 750-million euro threshold.

That being said, the companies concerned will have to report information in the countries where they are located. Again, there are a number of ways to avoid that. There are companies with “non-resident” status for tax purposes. Tax experts already have the means to get around the rules. Nonetheless, this reporting will ensure that these multinationals declare their revenues and how many employees they have in every country. This will help the Canadian government and other governments find disparities in the numbers.

Take for example a company that does very little business in a given country but reports all of its profits there. I will not name a country, but let us say that it is a Caribbean country with a small population where there is not a lot of business activity. In that case, country-by-country reporting would show us how much profit that company is making.

That would allow the world governments to identify discrepancies in tax returns and determine which companies could be committing tax evasion or abusing the transfer pricing principle, that is, when many subsidiaries of the same multinational corporation exchange services or bill each other for royalties or patent rights and then report their profits in countries with much lower tax rates.

This measure is still a step in the right direction. Although many other measures were presented to the OECD, this one was discussed and it is relatively good, aside from the threshold of 750 million euros. That was strongly criticized.

Some people mentioned that this amount could be lowered to $60 million. Take for example the Association of Canadian Financial Officers, which recommended lowering that threshold to $60 million a year and requiring the multinationals in question to provide the Canada Revenue Agency with more detailed information on their activities in every country.

I would like to mention that the Canada Revenue Agency should also publish this information so that Canadians can see the fiscal arrangements of these multinationals that they do business with on a daily basis. It might be interesting for consumers to have the option of looking at the tax practices of the stores they shop in at the mall.

I said I was going to talk about the Canada child benefit in my speech. I want to criticize the fact that this benefit was not indexed. When it was announced, there was no plan to index this benefit, and that was strongly criticized by experts, obviously.

Fortunately, after hearing these criticisms, the Liberals incorporated indexing into the budget implementation bill, indexing that will not take effect until 2020, unsurprisingly. They admitted their mistake, saying that it was not a good idea, that they had forgotten about indexing, and that they were not going to include it until 2020. What a huge oversight!

This will certainly have a major impact on families in Sherbrooke who receive this benefit. They will see a decrease in the real value of their benefits, which will remain at the same level until 2020. The cost of living is rising in Sherbrooke, as is the cost of groceries. People regularly tell me that their grocery bills are climbing, and that their incomes are unchanged. Their purchasing power is shrinking, and this mistake will not help the situation in Sherbrooke.

We hope that this will be corrected once again, and that the Liberals will listen to reason on this issue, just as they listened to reason in the case of very clear, concise arguments about the lack of indexing. So I do not see why they would not listen to reason on the idea that indexing should be introduced earlier, or even immediately.

On another note, I also wanted to talk about the issue of asset recycling, an expression used by the government in the 2016 budget document tabled in the House to announce the government’s plans for the following year. A number of people have wondered about the expression “asset recycling”. What does “asset recycling” really mean?

We have also heard rumours about the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which the Liberals talked about during the election campaign. They had previously alluded to this project to establish a Canada Infrastructure Bank. Perhaps we will hear more about this in today’s economic statement.

However, the government is considering the idea of privatizing existing infrastructure, which is known as asset recycling. Privatizing government assets or putting them back in private hands generates revenue for the government. How do you generate revenue from infrastructure? By introducing a fee system. That is how you can successfully bring in revenue.

The same principle would be applied to the Canada Infrastructure Bank, so that it could continue to grow and we could continue to invest. Obviously, private investors will demand a good return on their investment. To get a return on infrastructure, you put in pay stations so that users have to pay to use the infrastructure, which should be public and accessible to everyone.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, every person should pay his or her fair share of tax. If we pay income taxes, it is for the purpose of getting services from the government, and we should not have to pay a second time when the government provides services to us.

I hope the government will listen to reason on this issue as well.

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

Madam Speaker, I will pick up on the member's last point. I know a number of New Democrats have mentioned the whole idea of infrastructure and how it is ultimately paid for.

Four or five years ago, the NDP government in Manitoba dealt with it by bringing forward legislation supporting P3s, which included private sector and government-sponsored infrastructure projects. My question for the member is this. Obviously at the provincial level it is a different thing, but do the New Democrats at the national level believe that the private sector plays no role whatsoever in infrastructure?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

First of all, I would like to say that a public-private partnership is not the same thing as the idea of having an investment bank that collects money from the private and public sectors to carry out projects that need to show a return. It is quite obvious that a bank does not work if there is no return. That is quite different from a public-private partnership. It is important to have good infrastructure, of course, but I do not think, as I said in my speech, that users should have to pay for infrastructure that has been paid for by the public. Who is the public? It is the users. Why would we ask users to pay for the same thing twice?

So I would tell my colleague to take money from taxpayers who pay taxes every year to provide infrastructure that they will use. However, I do not understand the idea of asking them to pay twice.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague had lots of good math facts in his speech. When it comes to the math facts about this budget, we hear a lot of rhetoric about the middle class, but it seems to me that if they give people a $900 tax cut and then take away $1,100 when they do the CPP and then they add a carbon tax and an Internet tax on that, they are really not helping them out. With seniors, I would say that giving them an extra $60 a month in GIS is nice, but then Kathleen Wynne comes along and takes away $130 a month, and then there is the carbon tax and the Internet tax, and they are not better off.

I wonder if the member could comment on whether he thinks this budget would make the people of Sherbrooke better off.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

It is true that taxpayers, and my fellow citizens in Sherbrooke, are being squeezed tighter and tighter. Their incomes keep shrinking, and the cost of living keeps rising. Clearly, the proliferation of measures that force them to pay more and more is not a positive thing. What we want as a government is to have fellow citizens who can participate fully in the economy because they have money in their pockets that they can reinvest in the economy. Citizens who have more money in their pockets are citizens who will go shopping more often and reinvest in the economy. The money does not vanish.

It is also important to have good salaries. To that end, I suggest that the government study the proposal to increase the minimum wage at the federal level. That would be a first step. Increasing the minimum wage creates a domino effect that makes the economy stronger and allows consumers to play a bigger role and spend more.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have heard for the last couple of days about how this budget would help middle-class people, especially at the level of about $180,000, where they would get a $900 tax credit. We have also heard in the last couple of days how this would help low-income families with children by giving them the child tax benefit.

Could my friend answer this question? How does this help the low-income middle-class people who are earning around $44,000? How would they benefit from this budget?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

The short answer is, not at all. I used the word “taxpayer” a lot; perhaps that is because of my role as national revenue critic. Citizens who have incomes below a certain threshold are not getting any help from their government. In the government’s first budget, we learned that the members of the upper middle class were getting the most. Where we live, an income of $44,000 is relatively high. If we do not help people whose incomes are below that threshold, it makes no sense economically.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, today I am speaking about C-29, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016, and other measures.

We are putting into action our promise to Canadians to help build a stronger and more prosperous middle class. This is what we have done over the past year, and it is what we will continue to do, not only over the next year but for the long term.

The government has an ambitious plan to better the middle class, and with that, the entire country. We have received support around the world on the steps we have taken, from the Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, the OECD, and the IMF managing director, Ms. Lagarde, who cites Canada as a role model for its ability to mobilize all possible levers to generate growth.

This is possible because our government has taken measure of the situation by listening to Canadians in tough economic times. We have not hesitated to take action either. Since July 1, Canadians families can receive up to $6,400 per year for a child under six, and $5,400 per year for a child aged six to 17. Nine out of 10 families have seen their benefits increase by $2,300, on average.

That is why I am proud to return to Surrey and speak with my friends, neighbours, and colleagues about how budget 2016 will positively affect their lives. Surrey Centre is home to young families who are keen on making their homes and lives in Surrey, and as a national government we have a duty and responsibility to support them when and where we can. The new Canada child benefit is our government's response to this. We are putting forward a more generous, simpler, and income-tested benefit that benefits more Canadian families than ever before.

It is with a vision to the long term for our country that this second budget implementation bill would amend the Old Age Security Act. It would restore to 65 the age of eligibility for old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. In this way, Canadians would have thousands of dollars more when they retire at the age of 65. Better yet, the 2016 budget would increase the amount to the guaranteed income supplement, which targets the most vulnerable seniors, providing up to $947 more per year.

With this second budget 2016 implementation bill before us today, we are delivering on the promise, set out in budget 2016, to support senior couples who must live apart for reasons beyond their control. If one member is located in a long-term care centre and find themselves suddenly faced with new and unexpected expenses, we are putting forward a proposal that ensures that they receive high benefits, based on the individual incomes of each individual. Again, the government is true to its promise of fairness to seniors and allowing them to retire with the dignity that they so deserve.

Our plan stimulates growth by giving more financial leeway to those who need it: middle-class families and seniors. Canadians also need to feel supported and protected as consumers. The federal government is showing leadership with the bill, as it would strengthen the framework that protects consumers who use financial products and services. We want to ensure that Canada's financial sector is capable of adapting to an aging population in an age of globalization, while still innovating and using the emerging technologies that challenge existing business models.

These new measures would include: first, improving access to basic banking services; second, imposing limits with respect to certain commercial practices; and third, finally improving disclosure of information to help consumers make better and more informed decisions.

Canadians also expect that financial institutions in this country have the means and resources to ensure that the integrity of our tax system is maintained. It is to ensure that everyone pays their fair share of taxes, and when I say everyone, I also include multinationals that operate in many jurisdictions. That is why our government is committing to working with our G20 partners to develop and implement an international plan to fight tax evasion and tax avoidance. It is a plan that will enhance our current measures and adopt new ones.

One of the key instruments behind our government's plan on cracking down on tax evasion is to help support the G20 and OECD declarations on tax evasion. This is an instrument that will force major companies to report on their activities in each jurisdiction in which they operate as well as the nature of these activities. This will also allow Revenue Canada to have a global view of these large multinational corporations. This is the first in the fight on tax evasion.

I should also add that the 2016 budget provides another important measure to counter tax evasion, allowing Canada to be part of the global standard for the automatic exchange of information, which was developed by the OECD. When this law is passed and these new measures are applied, Canadian financial institutions can and will identify accounts held by non-residents and will have to report these accounts to Revenue Canada.

Meanwhile, foreign financial institutions will collect more information on accounts held by foreigners, including Canadians. There are more than 100 countries and jurisdictions, including the Cook Islands, which just last week became the 106th jurisdiction to join the most powerful international instrument against offshore tax evasion and avoidance.

This government is putting forward a plan that is based on fairness. It would provide Canadians with an optimistic view of the future. We are working to ensure that Canada continues to move forward and lead the international community, particularly with the implementation of our bold economic policies that put a focus on growing the middle class to ensure the prosperity of our country.

I encourage all members to vote for the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the issues that is covered in Bill C-29 is the indexing of the Canadian child benefit beginning in January 2020, which is four years from now. The parliamentary budget officer has estimated that this could cost an additional $42 billion over the next five years. In fact, it would double the original amount budgeted, yet the parliamentary secretary said the Liberals are going to go ahead with this measure regardless of what it is going to cost.

Where will the Liberal government find the money to pay for this inflated cost? Will it be through increased taxes, taxing our jobs and small businesses out of existence, or will it simply be to add to the budget deficit that is already ballooning and is currently at $30 billion? It is estimated that over the next 10 years, the interest costs alone on that deficit would increase by $10 billion. Where will the Liberals find the money to fund this promise?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, this government is implementing a budget that is based on infrastructure, innovation, and growth. It is through innovation, infrastructure, and growth that Canadians will increase the economy. Companies will be able to grow and expand, and therefore, our tax base will accordingly be expanded.

The costs of these measures will come from the growth of this economy, which has been stagnant for too many years and too long. It will expand through the growth of the revenue that will be received through much-needed infrastructure growth, and the income tax revenue from the middle class will increase when the growth of the middle class happens. It is all included in the growth strategy of this government, and I think these measures will be funded accordingly.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have asked this question to another of the member's colleagues, but I was not sure I received a satisfactory response regarding the understanding of the infrastructure bank and the terminology of “asset recycling”.

Canadian municipalities are sounding the alarm about the Liberals' plan to take promised money for housing and transit, and instead put it into their infrastructure bank scheme. Does the member understand that this new bank requires that a project pay a return on investment?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I believe the infrastructure bank and its mandate are still to be determined. The rules and the implementation of it are still to be determined. However, municipalities and cities can rest assured with the commitment this government has made to infrastructure spending, and the 50% on infrastructure projects shall remain.

The goal of the infrastructure bank is actually something that a lot of these municipalities have been asking for, which is a base they can rely on for satisfactory funding at low cost to implement a lot of the infrastructure projects that they have been dreaming of for so long. We can go coast to coast to coast to the major cities in this country and we will see failing infrastructure projects, sewer systems that are outdated, bridges that are falling apart, and highways in need of repair. This infrastructure bank will only help in implementing those projects that are beyond perhaps some of the scope of the infrastructure funding.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am always happy to take part in the discussions of the House.

I had the opportunity to spend a good part of yesterday afternoon here, and I heard the speeches on all sides. I remain a little perplexed at what the Liberals are saying.

For my part, I am here in the House to present a timeline of the evolution of the Liberal plan.

At the beginning of the election campaign, in August 2015, they were talking about a modest deficit that would allow the government of Canada to create employment, and enable the Canadian economy to prosper and develop some infrastructure projects. Later in that same election campaign, we were hearing that the deficit would be quite small, only $10 billion. Last March, we were hearing that all the services the government wanted to offer Canadians would cost taxpayers $30 billion. We are not counting the same things: this is not what Canadians had been promised.

Recently, we heard that the deficit might be $35 billion or even higher. I wonder if our prime minister is going to wake up one day. The deficit may be even higher because he doesn’t really know how to count. He is spending our money, taxpayers’ money, my money, my daughters’ money and my grandson’s money. He is spending extravagantly. There is very little left for Canadians. Now who is going to have to pay this bill? I am going to pay part of it, but the biggest share will be paid by future generations, those who come after us, my grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

To listen to the Liberals, there seems to be no problem: look, they want a beautiful Canada for our children! According to the Liberals, it’s nothing serious if they don’t have any money later — they will see to that later on. I don’t know what they are smoking, but in any case, we are stronger on this side of the House.

We should have seen economic growth in the wake of the Liberals’ spending. We should have seen a difference. Given all the money they have waved under our nose, we should have seen that difference. But instead, what we are seeing at this time is job losses across the country and infrastructure investments with nothing concrete accomplished. They promised a lot of money for infrastructure. No one on either side of the House has seen the first ground-breaking ceremony. If someone has, please tell me, because in my riding I can say that nothing has been done.

They have talked about programs which, according to the Liberals, are helping nine Canadians out of ten, programs that will be paid for by their new carbon tax. They had promised us job creation. But job creation is stagnant. We have just learned, from the finance minister himself, that future jobs, the jobs of our children and those to come after, will once again be unstable jobs, seasonal jobs. We are well paid, here in the House, as we represent our fellow citizens, but there is nothing concrete for those who will come after.

Where are the Liberals’ fine promises? They have hoodwinked us. They think that, when they get up, the good lord goes to bed. They think they are the best, but the best at what? They are the best at putting us in the red, that much is true. They are the best at taking pretty pictures with people. All very pleasant, but it doesn’t provide anything to eat or anything for our children.

The mismanagement of public funds does not stop there, under the Liberals. In Bill C-29, the Liberals are going to index the Canada child benefit to inflation starting in January 2020. The parliamentary budget officer has estimated that this indexing would cost $42.5 billion over the next five years. Where are the Liberals going to find that money? In the pockets of my daughters, whose jobs are already unstable? In the pockets of Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Smith who are working for a pittance? Where will they find that money? Growing on trees? The environment is very nice, but if they have a tree that grows money, I would like to have one in my yard. That is not the way things work. What will we have to do to pay for the Liberals’ extravagance? Stop eating? Will we tell people not to pay their electricity bill because the carbon tax is costing them a bundle? We shall see next month: we shall see how the budget will be balanced. Is this what Canada’s Liberals stand for?

Meanwhile, the cost of living is not stagnant. There are fewer jobs and the cost of living is going up. It’s a simple calculation: Canadians will no longer have the same quality of life. The previous government, on the other hand, believed in the ability of Canadians. It believed that Canadians could think for themselves and spend their money as they saw fit. Their money stayed in their pockets instead of in government coffers.

The Liberals talk a lot about the middle class. For them, the middle class is made up of those who earn $90,000 or more per year. We are part of the middle class. I can tell you that, in my riding, the middle class is quite a bit poorer than we are. The middle class does not have the means to go to $1500-a-plate fundraising parties just to meet the pretty little MP who smiles and takes nice photos. I would not engage in that sort of thing either, because I have far more integrity than the Liberals.

With the Liberals’ budget, we ought to have rules introduced to guarantee the long-term stability of the real estate market. Well, we shall see. The Liberals have also said that increasing contributions to the Canada pension plan will be good for the economic health of Canadians in the long term, that is, in 40 years. My 86-year-old mother is presently ill and hospitalized. She could use that money now. I don’t think she will still be here in 40 years. I don’t think she will be able to benefit from this. I think that this is more hoodwinking of Canadians coming from the government opposite.

I find it deplorable that the government members across the aisle are holding Canadians hostage with their lip service, their big smiles, and their sunny ways. Sooner or later we are going to hit a wall, and average Canadians will be left to pay for everything, even though they are not millionaires and have no money left despite how hard they work just to earn a living. I believe in Canadians' capacity to think for themselves. I am tired of centralist governments that think that if things are going well, they are responsible.

We have to be realistic and stop being partisan. We have to look at the facts: this government is putting us in the red. I want to repeat what I said last week; my father often used to say that heaven is blue and hell is red. I really have no desire to be in the red because of this government.

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

Madam Speaker, I do believe that, in good part, the member has missed the mark if we take a look at something very tangible that the Government of Canada has done with the money and with taxpayers. We believe it is a reflection of what Canadians want, and this demonstrates the degree to which the Conservative Party is really out of touch with what Canadians expect of their government.

Let me give members a specific example. The guaranteed income supplement will in fact enhance incomes for the poorest of our seniors in every region of our country. Yes, it is costly, but people believe we need to support our seniors.

The Canada child benefit will also lift tens of thousands of children out of poverty. Yes, it is costly, but Canadians want us to deal with poverty.

Does the member not acknowledge that the government has a role to play in dealing with poverty in Canada?

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

If he thinks I do not understand, I would like to say that, just because I am a woman, does not mean I do not understand. Yes, I understand. Moreover, I understand exactly what my constituents are telling me.

Poverty has always existed. I myself have been poor, so I know what I am talking about. However, when I was poor and having a hard time paying for housing and groceries, the government did not come and take money out of my pockets. It let me keep my money, because I was having a hard time making ends meet.

Now the government is centralizing everything. I do not know whom it consulted, but it was certainly not the middle class or Canadians living in poverty. If that had been the case, there would be no carbon tax, and the government would have stopped taxing Canadians, who would then have more money in their pockets.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the member to address her remarks to the Chair.

Questions and comments.

The hon. member for Windsor West.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the things the member mentioned was the previous record of the Conservative government, and we are talking about consumption taxes. In particular, the Conservatives are responsible for the GST and then the son of the GST, which would be the HST. Therefore, the—

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Come on. We cut it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. The member will have a chance to answer the question. She needs to respect the person who has the floor right now.

The hon. member for Windsor West.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have never been heckled by the person of whom I was asking a question, but at any rate, it is never too late to learn.

The process of that was a $6-billion contribution—$4 billion to Ontario and $2 billion to British Columbia—at a time of a deficit. I had the House of Commons do some analysis about those borrowing costs. Because we were in a deficit, it is going to be more of an $8-billion to $10-billion expenditure with the borrowing costs rolled in.

I would ask the member about the history of the Conservative Party that actually borrowed $6 billion to $8 billion to $10 billion, approximately, to bring in a consumption tax that affects every age, every consumer, and every income, versus that of a income-based tax.

Again, why do the Conservatives feel that the HST was so important for Canadians? Generally speaking, consumption taxes hurt all, not just the individuals who should pay for those things.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, the party on this side of the House is the one that cut the GST.

I remember the 2006 election campaign, when I ran for the first time. Mr. Chrétien had promised to cut the GST, but that never happened. On the contrary, the Liberals increased the GST. Typical Liberal promises.

During the 2006 election campaign, we Conservatives promised to cut the GST, and we cut it to 5%. People can say what they want about the Conservative Party, but one thing is certain: when Mr. Harper, our former prime minister, promised something, he kept his word.

Over time, we have gotten used to the Liberals making fine promises in front of the cameras, but they have reneged on everything from the word go. I will vote against this budget because it is not good for the middle class.

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

Madam Speaker, today I rise in the House to participate in the debate on the Liberal government's second budget implementation bill. In the spring, the Liberals presented their first budget. The actual implementation comes in two phases: Bill C-15, budget implementation act, 2016, No. 1, which was passed last spring; and now we are implementing the next phase of the budget, known as budget implementation act, 2016, No. 2, which are the technical measures to make the budget law.

Left with a $2.9 billion surplus by the Conservative government, confirmed by the parliamentary budget officer on October 24, the Liberal government, which campaigned on controlled deficit spending, blew through its promises and did not just double its projected spending but tripled it. If that was not enough, it has now been made clear by the Bank of Canada, the International Monetary Fund, and the OECD that Canada's forecasted growth will be much less than anticipated. This means the deficit will actually be larger than three times the government's original promise. In fact, TD Bank estimates that the deficit will be approximately $34 billion.

If we consider debt charges alone over the course of the government's mandate, interest charges increased by almost $10 billion. Over the next four years, the interest costs alone will rise from $25.7 billion to $35.5 billion. That is just interest alone. This is a lot of money that could be invested better, perhaps reducing taxes, especially for the small business sector.

Canadians believed the Liberal Party when it said that the deficit spending it would undertake would lead to prosperity and growth. Following the release of the budget, my office sent out surveys to every household and business in my riding, asking whether they supported the out-of-control spending of the Liberal government. Of the responses I received, over 90% of my constituents did not support these ballooning deficits and unnecessary spending.

Canadians will remember the stimulus spending the Conservative government undertook during the recession years of 2008 to 2010 and the ability of that government to lift Canada out of the recession stronger than any other G7 country. On top of that, our Conservative government kept its promise to return the budget to balance and, as I said before, even left the Liberal government with a surplus of $2.9 billion.

However, we are not seeing the promised results of the Liberal deficit spending. Just a year ago, the Liberals promised that they could spend their way to prosperity and growth. Hard-working Canadians trusted them to borrow just a modest sum. They said that they would create more jobs and put more money in their pockets. Canadians are still waiting.

By most measures, Canadians are worse off than they were a year ago and the unemployment rate has not changed since the Liberals took office. Good jobs are in short supply. The vast majority of new jobs created under the Liberals have been part time, which helps explain why weekly earnings for the average worker have not budged. Meanwhile, the cost of living has gone up and it is now harder for Canadians to afford new homes. The new federal rules announced last month mean even fewer will be able to buy a first home.

During the summer, I invited the member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, who was the critic for economic development for southern Ontario, to my riding to participate in a manufacturing round table. There was a great turnout and I was pleased to listen to the concerns of many in the Waterloo region.

In addition to a number of small business owners, also present were the Cambridge and Greater Kitchener Waterloo Chambers of Commerce. One point that came up time and time again from business owners was they cannot operate businesses for very long by borrowing for operating costs.

All of us realize that a major capital investment, such as a home or new equipment, will require sensible borrowing, but to borrow more and more for operating costs is a recipe for disaster. It is really only a matter of time until businesses are finished. The same principle needs to be operative at the federal level of budgeting. We cannot continue to borrow to operate a bloated government.

Another issue that was brought up during the round table were the increased challenges the Liberal government was forcing on businesses such as changes to the CPP program, and, at the same time, the prospect of a national carbon tax. With both of these changes being implemented in the near future, these job-creating businesses in the Waterloo region will be forced to make hard decisions and limit their own growth or perhaps even lay off workers.

The Waterloo region has a strong manufacturing sector and for the Liberal government to be putting unnecessary pressure on these businesses simply does not make sense.

In addition to these manufacturing businesses, other small businesses in my riding and members of the agricultural community have great concerns with the Liberal government's changes to CPP and the implementation of a national carbon tax. Small businesses have learned already through the Liberal government's broken promise to lower their tax rate that this government is not making decisions that are in the best interest of job creators.

However, if that were not enough, just like the manufacturing businesses I heard from, the increase in mandatory CPP paycheque hikes would cost these companies jobs. It would force them to reject the proposal for expansion, postpone new initiatives, or to put off hiring that new employee.

Layered on all of this is the government's new top-down mandatory carbon tax. In my riding, there are over 1,200 farms, approximately 1,400 farms in all of Waterloo region. This new tax will raise their operating costs by thousands of dollars per year, which will in turn raise the grocery bills of Canadians from sea to sea. The cost of living under the Liberal government keeps rising, while employment and wages are stagnant or, in fact, on the decline.

Over the past several months I have been petitioning the Minister of Transport, through letters and questions during question period, on the topic of ultra low-cost carriers. My office has been contacted directly by Jetlines and the Waterloo international airport, asking the Minister of Transport to change the foreign ownership rules for carriers so companies, such as Jetlines, can operate in Canada.

Nine months ago, the pathways report was made public, and this clear recommendation came to the transport minister. Here we are, nine months later, and still no action. This change would provide Canadians with low-cost and convenient travel, as these carriers would primarily be servicing secondary airports across Canada. This is an absolutely clear issue. This has the potential to create thousands of new jobs and offer a more affordable option for travel. However, the Liberal government remains committed to standing in the way of private enterprise.

The Liberals said a massive deficit would create jobs. The parliamentary budget officer's employment assessment said that after a year of Liberal borrowing, there have been zero new full-time jobs created. Job growth is at half the rate of the previous government, and all of the jobs are part time. Despite the low dollar, there are 20,000 fewer manufacturing jobs than there were a year ago.

I would like to talk about the tax credits the government has abolished with this new budget and the introduction of the Canada child benefit.

The Liberal government's removal of the student textbook tax credit has big impacts on the Waterloo region, which is home to several universities and colleges. With the cost of tuition increasing and fewer and fewer job prospects, students need help covering costs. This was one method the government was able to help them.

The Waterloo region is also home to many great sports clubs and associations. Our previous government introduced the child fitness tax credit to help families pay for the cost of their children's sports fees. This helped many families that otherwise might not have been able to afford it and it also encouraged health and wellness through sport, which in turn reduces health care costs.

The Liberals defend these cuts by citing their Canada child benefit, but recently we discovered that their own budgets did not allow for indexing to inflation. This would mean that Canadians would actually be losing money each year under this new plan. In an effort to remedy this monumental error the government has included in this legislation updates to the program allowing for indexation.

The parliamentary budget officer had estimated that indexing and enriching the Canada child benefit would cost $42.5 billion over the next five years. The parliamentary secretary said that the Liberals were going forward with this regardless of the financial pressure it put on public finances. The parliamentary budget officer found the program would cost more than double the original amount budgeted if indexed over the next five years. Where will the Liberals find money for this new spending?

As we have seen already over the past year, and I have made clear in this speech, the government will be digging deeper and deeper into debt without any plan of ever returning the budget to balance.

It is clear that the government's uncontrolled spending and poor policy decisions have been, continue to be, and will be over the next three years, disastrous for the Canadian economy. That is why I cannot support the legislation. I ask the Liberal government to reconsider the poor economic decisions that are included in the bill.