House of Commons Hansard #107 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was families.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have a lot to say about the content of my friend's speech. I am deeply concerned, as are all people in this place, for Canadians who are hurting from the economic downturn.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I would like to speak to that, but the first important—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
Does the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill want to respond to that?
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Green Party has been probably one of the most vocal opponents of every part of the Alberta economy for the last 10 years, so I will take no lessons from her on this matter.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
I believe we are getting into debate, but I will go to the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, the reason I feel it is important to make something of the member's choice of words is that she then accused people opposite her for reacting. In that context, decorum and respect are important in this place.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I remind those who are now heckling me that they are breaking the rules of this place when they do so.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have never heckled in this place, not once, and I have never used language that was unparliamentary, not once. I recognize my friend's passion, but I do not forgive, nor do I accept—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
I will read what is on page 619 of O'Brien and Bosc. It states:
In dealing with unparliamentary language, the Speaker takes into account the tone, manner and intention of the Member speaking; the person to whom the words at issue were directed...
—and it goes on.
There are times in the chamber when passion takes over, things get heated, and sometimes we say things that are out of order or that may not be parliamentary. The hon. member said a couple of things that were borderline, but it is up to her to decide whether they were unparliamentary. Someone took offence. I will take it under advisement and bring it back to the table, and we will go from there.
Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.
Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2Government Orders
Saint-Maurice—Champlain Québec
Liberal
François-Philippe Champagne LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the member for her passionate speech. I think everyone in the House today and those listening at home understand how much she cares about Albertans and what is going on in the energy sector. I am one of those Canadians who goes from coast to coast to coast to listen to Canadians to see what they are going through and how we can improve things.
When she talked about Alberta, I can relate, because I come from Shawinigan and can say that, if there is a place in this country that has been hurting over the years, it is my own riding. Therefore, I understand her passion when she asked what the government has done for Canadians.
Let me set the record straight for people watching. The first thing we did as a government was reduce taxes. This is helping people in Alberta, it is helping people in Shawinigan, and it is helping people in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is helping every Canadian.
She asked what we have done for people in Alberta.
I am sure my colleagues would like to listen to this, because it does matter.
I went from Moncton to Yellowknife to listen to people and, trust me, people asked the government to help them and their families and to grow the economy. What have we done to help families? We introduced the Canada child benefit. Nine families out of 10 are receiving more money than they were under the previous government. Then we improved aid for seniors and for students.
What I would like to ask the member for Calgary Nose Hill is why she could not support measures that are helping the families that she herself is trying to help.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
Before the member responds, I would like to remind members that I am trying to hear what members are saying, and I was struggling to hear the hon. parliamentary secretary.
The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am going to respond by recounting a conversation I had with one of my constituents. He said that he listens to the Liberals every day when I ask about the carbon tax or why they are not supporting Keystone XL or why they are doing nothing for the Alberta energy sector, nothing. They always say they are helping the middle class. He said that the next time they give me that answer, I should tell them for him that he cannot take advantage of a tax break if he does not have a job.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, our economy is based on our regions. In the region I represent, families leave home all the time to go to work, because there is no work back home. Therefore, building regional economic development in a region that has been a have-not for a long time is really important.
I was shocked that the first decision the government made for northern Ontario was to cut all the broadband projects right across the north, as though we did not need to compete. Then it took our voice away from cabinet. I guess the Liberals think we are dummies. They think we do not need a voice in cabinet, that someone from Mississauga is fine. Then they took the resources that were meant to be spent on northern economic development and spent it in the minister's riding. If that is not the most egregious case of pork barrelling, or an example of the government's idea of the map extending around the little boroughs in the central areas it has members, we have a big problem.
I would like to ask my hon. colleague about the importance of speaking for regions that are outside the Liberal bubble.
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with my colleague. Canada is greater than the sum of its parts. The only way that happens is when we sit around the cabinet table and people from different parts of the country look around and ask if it makes sense for everyone. This document does not make sense for all parts of the country, at all. Frankly, I do not know who it makes sense for, but it certainly does not make sense for my riding.
I had one person come up to me and say that if this were a ketchup plant in Southwestern Ontario, there would be a national outcry. Why is the government not standing up for Alberta? A strong Alberta is a strong Canada.
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Surrey—Newton, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in favour of Bill C-29, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures.
I will begin my remarks by speaking about my riding of Surrey—Newton, which is a community that will benefit directly from the measures outlined in the government's budget.
Much like the rest of Surrey, my riding of Surrey—Newton is experiencing the pressure of growth caused by the migration of 1,200 people moving into Surrey every month.
Surrey—Newton has a strong middle class, a range of different compositions of families with children and seniors. Because of the great interest from the residents regarding many of the budgetary issues and measures introduced last spring, I want to highlight a few of the items that will benefit my constituents the most.
The new Canada child benefit is a significant step forward in recognizing the financial pressures of the middle-class families with children. The new consolidated benefit is easier to account for, indexed according to income levels, and overall more generous than the previous system.
Today, families can receive up to $6,400 per year for each of their children under the age of six. For each child aged six to 17 years, families can receive up to $5,400 per year. This is significant because statistics show that nine out of 10 families have seen their benefits increase under the new plan that was rolled out as of July 1, 2016, with an average bump totalling approximately $2,300.
From the personal impacts I am hearing regarding such an increase, this is a windfall that is really extending the household budgets in Surrey—Newton.
Similarly, seniors are overwhelmingly appreciative of the changes to the Old Age Security Act, which returns the age of eligibility to 65, while at the same time increasing the amount of guaranteed income supplement up to $947.
Vulnerable seniors on fixed incomes are a group that every member of the House is encountering, given their respective constituencies. This budget would fulfill a promise to address those who are most at risk of financial uncertainty, both in terms of seniors as well as young families trying to get a foothold.
In fact, it is what classify as a people's first budget, meaning that this government is committed to improving the situations of middle-class families and seniors with tangible and targeted actions.
This does not mean, however, that it fails to recognize the broader picture when it comes to measures that will continue to build the nation's economic climate.
I want to touch on two specific areas of focus.
First is the number of changes that will allow for greater control over taxation. The budget does this by closing many of the loopholes and policies that allow for billions of dollars of unpaid tax dollars to escape scrutiny. This government believes that multinational corporations should never be able to accrue tax benefits that put them on a different level of consideration than the average, hard-working Canadian taxpayer.
By working with the G20 and the OECD, and ensuring that the provisions attached to both that addresses tax evasion are utilized, it disallows these mega business entities from operating in isolation within Canada.
There must be consequences for avoiding paying their fair share while operating in our country because the lost revenues that this government is currently encountering are dollars that can be invested in Canadian citizens.
Speaking of investment, this government is also looking at the infrastructure needs of the country and investing to build for our future.
For example, in the city of Surrey, residents and businesses alike are struggling with a public transit system that cannot keep up with the demand. As I mentioned earlier, 1,200 people are moving into Surrey every month. To deal with this demand, the Surrey LRT line is one of the most important and pressing projects in metro Vancouver at the moment. It is absolutely essential to keep up with the growth the city of Surrey is experiencing.
The fact is that with Canada having the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio of any G7 country, now is the time for Canada to build and invest for the future. These are not simply the opinions of the government, but one that is voiced by economists from across the country.
In fact, recently the Bank of Canada governor, Stephen Poloz, urged this government to spend more on infrastructure to boost sluggish and long-term growth. Let me provide a direct quote from Mr. Poloz. He said:
In the case of a targeted investment by government, which is identified in such a way that it will be growth enabling, is very likely to pay off very well, That is, it creates more economic growth for all those who use that infrastructure, and that of course creates tax revenues and the system keeps turning.
To address the fearmongering from the other side of the House, this is what Mr. Poloz said about the deficit. He said, “Canada is in a very good fiscal situation so we shouldn't be worrying about that at this time”.
This government is going to transform the empty announcements of the previous administration that often did not deliver on the funds. Instead it will make concrete investments that will energize our economy now and for decades to come by investing in Canadians who need consideration the most and for those whose spending serves as a spark for economic growth. By investing in infrastructure for our cities across the country, this government understands that a budget that does not deliver for people is a budget not worth delivering.
We recognize that impacting an individual or a family's daily life takes strong measures that clearly lay out a plan that is actionable and not just used for political purposes.
I am very proud to support this second budgetary implementation bill. I can see the difference being made in the lives of my constituents in Surrey—Newton and all Canadians. That is one of the most satisfying things I take away from being a member of Parliament and something I never take for granted.
Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2Government Orders
November 15th, 2016 / 4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Alice Wong Conservative Richmond Centre, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to seniors and their families in my riding of Richmond Centre and this is what I have heard.
First, there is nothing in the budget about family caregivers who have to look after their aging parents and grandparents as well as their own children while working. They can then choose to work only part-time, or stay home. That is a loss of productivity. That is bad for economic growth.
Second, there is nothing in the budget to protect seniors from all forms of abuse.
Why is the government not doing anything for seniors and for this specific group of families that has to look after seniors?
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Surrey—Newton, BC
Mr. Speaker, I can certainly tell the member that all the members from British Columbia, and I can vouch for the member for Steveston—Richmond East, are fighting hard for those seniors and those families in Richmond.
As I mentioned earlier, it was the Conservative government that wanted to raise the retirement age from 65 to 67. The government that kept the age at 65 is this Liberal government, and I am very proud to be part of it. I am certain that the member will also be proud when she goes back and talks to those citizens who need the help the most.
As I mentioned in my speech, we also increased the guaranteed income supplement by $947. I am sure that my colleague from Steveston—Richmond East will agree that this is going to benefit all seniors living in Richmond and in my riding of Surrey—Newton and across Canada.
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
Mr. Speaker, I will ask the member the same question I asked his colleague for York Centre regarding the fact that this budget does not do anything for the middle class. We have a so-called middle-class tax break that only kicks in for people making more than $45,000 a year.
I have looked up the data for Surrey, and 75% to 80% of the people in Surrey make less than $45,000 a year. It is not going to help anyone there. It is not going to help families who need to have both parents working, because they cannot afford child care.
There is no affordable child care in this budget. The child benefit will not come anywhere near to paying for that kind of child care. I do not know if the member is waiting for a new NDP government to be elected in British Columbia next year that has promised to bring that in, but I think it behooves the current federal government to help Canadians.
If the Liberals want to help the middle class, what have they done in this budget if they are not bringing in tax benefits for them and are only helping the wealthy?
