Debates of Nov. 15th, 2016

Second Reading

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to join this important debate on the government's fiscal update and the fiscal policy of the government in general.

To be frank, there is a lot to sink one's teeth into in terms of objections to the government's direction. I can say, having just come back from constituency week and having spoken with constituents in my riding, that people in Alberta, but I think across the country, are being hit very hard by the policies of the government.

As I think through it and talk to business leaders, I am reminded of the fact that every single tax they pay is going up. Small businesses in my riding face a higher small business tax rate as a result of the fiscal policy of the government. They face a carbon tax, a carbon tax brought in by the provincial government but which the federal government will do everything it can to prevent any subsequent provincial government from repealing.

We have the elimination of the hiring credit for small business. Bill C-26 would raise payroll taxes that individual employees as well as small businesses would pay. There is the undoing of employment insurance reforms, which would, in the long run, force up employment insurance premiums. Of course, small businesses are facing higher business tax rates in general from the provincial government and are grappling with the minimum wage hike and other changes that are happening, and there still has been no serious effort when it comes to market access for our resources.

We have a government that is hitting businesses again and again and again. The reality is that these are the job creators in our economy. These are the people whose investments and ingenuity create jobs and opportunities for our country. I just went through the list, objectively, of things that are happening to businesses in my riding, and I have to say that I find the continuing optimism and the continuing desire of business leaders in my constituency to move forward and build truly inspiring. The government should be there to try to help them succeed, not make their job more difficult when it comes to creating jobs and opportunities.

I will mention one specific thing in this fiscal update, and that is the implementation of certain regulations with respect to credit unions. There are credit unions in my constituency. The application of one-size-fits-all regulations, perhaps designed for the big banks, to every small credit union is a huge red-tape burden. Again, we have a government that is not listening, that is not paying attention to small businesses. This deals with one specific sector of the economy, credit unions, but it is another example of how the government is simply out of touch with the needs of the job creators in our economy.

Moving beyond that, I was to talk about two general points: deficit spending by the government in general and the issue of the employment insurance changes contained in this fiscal update.

The government's approach to deficit spending is, yes, to run deficits, but it is more than that. It is to undertake a policy of constant structural deficits. This is very different from the traditional arguments made for deficits. There are, I think, good arguments for running deficits in certain situations. The basis of that would be the Keynesian economic principle of counter-cyclical government spending, a government doing more spending during times of economic challenge to offset the pullback happening in the economy as a whole and then the government pulling back and running surpluses during times of economic prosperity.

The importance of this is that the government is providing that stimulus for economic activity during relatively difficult times but is still balancing its budget over the long term. It is still in a position, in the long run, to balance its budget. I think we should all accept that we have to balance the budget in the long term. We cannot constantly, over a sort of forever time horizon, spend more than we have. Eventually, the capacity to borrow will run out. There is nothing wrong with running deficits in certain situations, provided that we intend to balance the budget over the long term.

When we talk about stimulating the economy, the important thing is that it needs to be in times that are relatively less good. Of course, even during good times, there will be people who are struggling. There will be people without jobs. There will perhaps be a desire to increase growth. However, if the government always spends more than it has in good times as well as bad times, then eventually, it is going to run out.

The government talks about stimulus, but it is really abusing these arguments, because its position is not that the government can do counter-cyclical spending at certain times to stimulate the economy. Rather, its position, stated by the finance minister, is that we can just run deficits all the time. The finance minister responded to a question I asked earlier during committee of the whole about whether the government would ever balance the budget. He would not say yes to that very simple question.

If we look at what is happening in the economy, the government is constructing arguments that are entirely resistant to the evidence. If things are going well, Liberals will say it is an indication of the fact that they can spend more. When things are going poorly, they say that they need to spend more. Every situation, good or bad, every data point, in their minds, is proof that they need to constantly be spending more money. Of course, there are limits.

Although Canada has a relatively low federal debt-to-GDP ratio, our total government debt-to-GDP ratio, which includes what the Kathleen Wynne Liberals in Ontario are doing and other spending programs of provincial governments, is comparable to countries like the United States and the U.K. It is important that we look at the total debt-to-GDP ratio, because in Canada we have relatively more public services provided at the provincial level than we do federally. For the federal government to say that it has lots of room to run deficits just is not true, because it needs to look at the overall debt-to-GDP ratio.

We see in this fiscal update the government making promises to people, increasing spending, and announcing the indexing of the new child benefit program. The Liberals are just not dealing with real money, because they are making promises into the future that are not costed, and that, in the long run, they should know they will not have the capacity to do. I think it is wrong to promise people that the government is going to spend money on things it knows it does not have the capacity to. When it has this kind of policy, when it undertakes government spending and assumes that it can run deficits forever, what it leads to eventually are significant cuts. The benefit of running surpluses during relatively good times and stimulating deficits during relatively less good times is that the government is able to spend more during challenging times, whereas countries that have consistently spent more than they have find themselves during bad times also in a position where they are forced to cut spending before they go off the fiscal cliff. That is the situation of some countries in Europe. We know that this has happened. We do not want to see Canada go down this road.

Just to complete blowing a hole in this stimulus argument, if we look at government spending, it is not targeted or temporary stimulus spending. Liberals are instituting what they would like to propose as permanent new social spending. They are proposing spending that is not targeted to economic stimulus. It is permanent new promised spending, a promise they know, or should know, simply cannot be kept.

I will conclude with a few comments about employment insurance reforms. In the last government, we brought in some very sensible reforms for employment insurance. Under new rules we brought in, it was expected that individuals would be actively involved in a job search to receive benefits. That is a reasonable requirement. We worked to define suitable employment in a way that said that even if individuals could not find exactly the same job they had before, there should be a broader definition of suitable employment but also that the government should provide more help to people in terms of finding jobs. We instituted a stronger system of providing job information to people who were seeking jobs.

It is important that individuals be actively involved in a job search when they are on employment insurance, that employment insurance be a meaningful insurance system, and that it be designed to help people get back to work, not something that can be constantly relied on year after year. I think that is a sensible way of structuring the program. The government, in undoing those employment insurance reforms, is creating additional costs for small businesses as well as for individuals, because everyone has to pay into that EI fund.

Therefore, if we take away those reforms to encourage job search on the payout side of it, then we have to increase the burden on those paying into it. This has a real cost for the creation of jobs and for people who work in our country. I prefer a policy that makes it easier for people to get jobs, not one that cuts back on jobs.

This is the wrong direction for our country, and I will be voting against this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I always find it a little ironic to hear the Conservatives talk about deficits.

If we look back to the turn of the 20th century, back to 1900, the Conservatives managed to balance one budget in the 20th century, which was in 1912, and they inherited it from the Liberals. The next year they were in deficit. In 1914, we went into the First World War already in a deficit position. The next time the Conservatives balanced a budget was in 2006, when they inherited it from the Liberals. However, if we go back to Confederation, there was only one Liberal prime minister who did not post at least one balanced budget, and that one had no budgets tabled at all as he was only there for four months.

Does the member have any comments on that?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not really see any need to go through and defend the policies of every Conservative government or oppose the policies of every Liberal government since Confederation. However, I really wish we had a prime minister and a finance minister who were more willing to align themselves with the Liberal fiscal policies that we have seen in the past. Although I would have many disagreements with some of those past Liberal governments, generally they had a much more sensible approach to fiscal policy than the current one.

What we are debating are the budget documents in front of us, which very clearly show no plan for ever returning to a balanced budget. There is even no acknowledgement that it is necessary.

Specifically to the record of the last Conservative government, one that I am very happy to defend in this respect, there was value in those stimulative deficits during the worst global financial crisis since the Great Depression. They were timely, targeted, and temporary stimulative investments. It is clear, and the parliamentary budget officer agrees, that we were back to a balanced budget, which the Liberals inherited before thoroughly destroying it, as quickly as they possibly could, in hopes of pinning their deficit on the previous government. However, we know from the parliamentary budget officer and from what the “Fiscal Monitor” has said that the current government plunged us into deficit after the Conservatives had balanced it.

It is a nuanced argument. There are times when it makes sense to run a deficit, but just because there are times when it makes sense to run a deficit does not mean that it makes sense to run deficits all the time. The Liberals think we should run deficits all the time. The Conservatives support deficits in certain situations for that targeted, stimulative approach, but we need to have a balanced budget over the long term.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the member was not elected in this place at the time Bill C-60, the omnibus budget bill of spring 2013, first brought in changes to disadvantage credit unions by increasing their tax rates and removing the tax credit they used to have. However, I was pleased to hear him speak in favour of the importance of credit unions, particularly to rural Canadians.

I have been disappointed that the changes made under Harper have not been rolled back by the current government. Would the member favour restoring to the credit unions the status they had before the spring omnibus budget bill of 2013, which was then known as Bill C-60?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with my friend about the importance of credit unions. I would be happy to dig more into the specifics of that provision from a previous budget and hear her perspective on it.

I am certainly not wedded to defending every policy of the previous government, although, in the broad direction when it comes to fiscal policy, we were moving very much in the right direction in terms of the stimulative deficits I talked about, but also moving back toward a balanced budget.

Definitely with respect to the bill in front of us, I have some significant concerns about what it would do to credit unions. However, I am happy to look at the provisions the member mentioned.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise in support of Bill C-29, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures.

Members of Parliament know better than most the staggering importance of the federal budget. I am speaking not only about this budget in particular but federal budgets in general. The spending choices federal governments have made since confederation have in fact shaped the Canada we live in today.

We know that billions of dollars of investment, if spent wisely, can transform our nation for the better. Indeed, a good budget has the capacity to push Canada closer to our shared ideal, a country where every Canadian, especially those struggling or who have been historically neglected, has a chance to succeed and find happiness, to feel secure, included, cared for and valued by his or her government.

I believe the budget we are debating today is one of those budgets, a very good budget, one that leaves no Canadian behind, and one that I am proud to support.

I represent a very diverse riding as the largest metropolis in Atlantic Canada. The riding of Halifax is home to people from a wide range of backgrounds and experiences. It is part of what makes my city so great. However, as with any diverse urban core, there is a range between those who are doing well for themselves and their families, that is those who are financially secure, and those who struggle every day to put food on the table, to pay rent and to make basic ends meet.

This is a city that is on the leading edge of some truly amazing things, gripped by an excited, ambitious energy, a city on the rise, growing every day at an exceptional pace, second in Canada only to Vancouver. Now more than ever, we cannot afford to leave anyone behind.

Yet the hard truth is that some of our most vulnerable populations in Canada have been overlooked for too long. For 10 years, their potential was left unrealized, their interests put on the back burner, their most basic needs often ignored. Therefore, I want to focus my remarks today on some of the important provisions proposed in budget 2016, in particular investments that will support Canada's struggling vulnerable and otherwise neglected communities.

I would like to begin with our government's investments in indigenous communities, which seek to support a renewed nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous peoples. Members may know that I have the honour of serving as the chair of the House Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. It is a role that, for me, has put a sharp focus on the extraordinary challenges facing indigenous peoples in Canada, as well as the daunting work that lies ahead for our government to address the tragic state of affairs caused by years, centuries, of neglect.

This budget demonstrates our government's commitment to begin this important task to remove the obstacles faced by indigenous people through investments in on-reserve education, training, and infrastructure, to name just three.

All in all, the government seeks to invest $8.4 billion over five years “to improve the socio-economic conditions of Indigenous peoples and their communities and bring about transformational change.” That funding includes $40 million for a national inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women and girls; $3.6 billion for ensure all first nations children receive quality education, including building and repairing schools; $1.2 billion for housing, early learning and child care centres on reserve; $2.2 billion for water and waste water treatment on reserve; and $33 million to support first nations to build sustainable fishing enterprises.

Many members here will know that following the release of the budget, the Assembly of First Nations National Chief Perry Bellegarde called the $8.4 billion investment historic and a break against the status quo. However, this funding is only the beginning and there is still much work to be done on this matter. It is the start of transformational change that is long overdue, and it is one of the sections of the budget of which I am most proud.

The next set of investments I would like to speak to are those supporting Canada's seniors. Our government understands that many seniors in Canada are facing difficult financial times after retirement, in particular single seniors who are three times more likely to live with low income than seniors more broadly.

For this reason, our government has proposed to enhance seniors' pensions, including an increase in the guaranteed income supplement for single seniors by up to $947 per year, a measure that will improve the financial situation of 900,000 seniors across the country. Further, as promised, the budget returns the age of retirement from 67 to 65, giving seniors thousands of more dollars as they retire from the workforce.

Another matter addressed by the budget is housing for seniors. On the campaign trail, I spoke with many seniors living in conditions that were inappropriate or inaccessible or where their rent and associated costs would eat up a devastating share of their monthly earnings. To help address this problem, the budget would invest $200 million in the construction, repair, and adaptation of affordable housing for seniors. These investments would unburden struggling seniors across Canada, allowing them the secure and dignified retirement that we all want for our grandparents, our parents, and ultimately ourselves.

I would like now to speak about support for students.

My riding of Halifax is home to seven colleges and universities. I learned this summer from representatives of the Nova Scotia chapter of the Canadian Federation of Students that one in 10 Haligonians is a student. As their MP, the issue of student debt is very important to me. We must make post-secondary education affordable to everyone, without burdening our future workforce with an impossible debt burden on the day of their graduation. That is why I am proud to support this budget, which would increase the Canada student grants program by 50% for low and middle-income students and which increases the loan repayment threshold, which is the amount an individual must be making per year before being required to make a student loan payment, from $20,000 to $25,000 per year.

I am also happy to support a budget which would double the number of Canada summer jobs available to students. This is money that would go right into the pockets of Canadian students and would give them valuable work experience. In my riding, students benefited tremendously from the Canada summer jobs program this year, but so did the employers of students as many would otherwise not be able to hire student help. It is truly a win-win for our students and our community in Halifax, as it has been across the country.

The final item I would like to speak about is the budget's support for low-income families.

One of this government's flagship initiatives, and one I was proud to bring to the doorsteps of voters when I was running to be the Halifax MP, is the new Canada child benefit. It just did not make sense for the previous government to be sending cheques to millionaires to cover their child care costs. It sure did not make sense that it was sending the exact same amount to millionaires as it was sending to the low-income families. That was unfair and plain wrong, and yet the Conservatives and the New Democrats thought it was the proper approach. Canadians saw just how out of touch that scheme was and they voted for a plan that included an improved child benefit, the new Canada child benefit.

The CCB is a simple, tax-free, and more generous benefit tied to family income where those who need it most receive the most, and no more cheques to millionaires. Now, nine out of 10 families receive more in child benefits than before, with the average family seeing an increase of $2,300 per year, and 300,000 fewer children will live in poverty in Canada. Simply put, the CCB is a transformational tool for low and middle-income families and it is another part of the budget that makes me so proud to support it.

There is one other item that will improve the living conditions of low-income families, and that is affordable housing.

All Canadian families deserve safe and affordable housing. Without stable housing at a price they can afford, every other goal families seek to achieve becomes secondary. Without adequate shelter, families struggle to raise their children, to get educated, to find employment, and even to stay healthy. Therefore, I am very glad, as an MP and as a career city planner, that budget 2016 would invest $2.3 billion over the next two years in affordable housing investments, which would be a great help to many low-income families and would lay the groundwork for a healthy economy for all.

At the beginning of my remarks today, I spoke about how the federal budgets had shaped the Canada we know today. Budget 2016 would reshape Canada again, for the better, a Canada that would work for everyone, including our most vulnerable Canadians, those who are struggling to make ends meet and those who have been neglected for far too long. I support the vision this budget puts forward, and I will be voting for it. I implore my colleagues in this chamber to do the same.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about a number of the proposed spending items in this fiscal update. What he knows, and what many of the member's colleagues would know, is that these are committed spending items which cannot possibly be permanent, given the massive hole in this budget. There is no balance, and no intention to balance the budget. Therefore, one can talk about these short-term spending proposals that are not in any way sustainable.

As my colleague thinks about this budget, I want to ask if in his mind there is any limit. Is there any point at which the member would say to the government that it is too much”? Is his limit $40 billion, or $50 billion, or $60 billion? At what point would the member say that, as much as those are nice things to spend money on, if the government is not able to sustain that level of social spending in the future, maybe it should pause and look at investments in Canadians that are sustainable over the long term rather than make promises of things that are not sustainable? I wonder if the member would tell us how much is too much and when, if ever, he thinks the government should balance the budget.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as it happens, we are debating this year's budget today, Bill C-29.

The budget is responding to a ticking time bomb of deferred liability in the form of deferred infrastructure maintenance and deferred investment in social structure in this country. Right now there is a tremendous amount that we can and should be doing, and that the budget is getting done.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I would like to make three points. How is it that the Liberals, after roundly criticizing guillotines to force bills through, are using the same strategies as the Conservatives? How is it that the new government, without ever mentioning it in the election campaign, wants to privatize our infrastructure on such a massive scale? Lastly, could my colleague from Halifax explain to us why people who earn less than $45,000 a year, which is less than $23 an hour, are being completely ignored by the Liberals, who do not consider them part of the middle class?

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is incumbent on everyone in the House to use to the greatest effect possible the time we have been given here by those who elected us. That is what the rules of Parliament allow us to do.

I would add that low-income families who earn less than $45,000 per year are in fact tremendously helped by the budget, largely through the Canada child benefit, through improvements to retirement packages, through investments in seniors housing, through investments in affordable housing across the board, and the list goes on.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been wanting to put this question to a government member all day and this gives me a chance to do so.

The difficulty I see happening in the House today is more a problem of how well the House leaders are getting along in scheduling time than it is the substance of the budget bill.

I just want to put on the record what I see, and although I am not privy to the meetings of the House leaders of the governing Liberal Party, the Conservative opposition, or the New Democrats, my sense from the fact that we have time allocation on the bill is that things are not going as co-operatively as they might.

I know that the bill has been before us for quite a while at second reading because of the fact that I was allowed to speak to it, and slots for members in the parties that are smaller only come along rarely, so we have had quite a lot more debate at second reading. But I object to these time allocations just the same.

While I am not going to say, “a plague on all their houses”, I wonder if the member for Halifax can give me any kind of insight as to what is going on, why we have time allocation when the bill, with co-operation, should have gone to committee already.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I was very sympathetic to the words of the government House leader earlier in the day when she said it is only with great regret that she brought forward the motion for closure in the House.

Unfortunately, we have been unable to use our time together wisely, and this is merely an attempt to make sure that we do the job today that we were sent here by Canadians to do.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP opposes Bill C-29, the budget implementation bill, for a number of reasons. It has multiple flaws. The Liberals were very vocal in their criticism of the fact that the Conservatives introduced mammoth budget implementation bills known as omnibus bills.

Now the Liberals have introduced a bill with 146 clauses that amends 13 acts and is 234 pages long. It is quite an eclectic mix. The Liberals are also and undemocratically imposing time allocation, which is a tactic they themselves condemned back then. Imposing time allocation prevents us from debating our positions in depth. The Liberals want to rush this bill to committee, which means that our constituents will not have access to all of the information. This is moving too fast, and the Liberals are not honouring their democratic commitment to transparency.

Throughout the campaign and even to this day, for the past year, they have been talking about working for the middle class and reducing inequality. However, and I will talk about this in my speech, many of the proposals in Bill C-29, the budget implementation bill, are utterly incompatible with their stated aim of reducing inequality.

Let us start by talking about SMEs. During the election campaign, we heard time and again from the Liberals that they would reduce the small business tax from 11% to 9%. Now they are not moving ahead with that proposal, which is not in the budget. We know, as do the Liberals who keep saying this, that SMEs are the job creators in the regions. They create 80% of jobs and keep the economy running. Why then are the Liberals putting obstacles in their way?

Two independent grocers in my riding came to see me because they wanted to tell me that it makes no sense that our country has still not passed legislation to cap exorbitant credit card fees. One of these grocers told me that it costs him $141,000 a year just to be able to accept credit cards. Grocers make a net profit of only 1% or so a year. Credit card charges are between 1.5% and 2.5%.

What should we do to ensure that these independent grocers continue to invest in our community? Every time there are school or community projects, independent grocers are asked for their involvement and financial support. However, if they are constantly hobbled, how are they going to survive in order to create jobs, first of all, not to mention to be able to contribute to their communities and our society? Times are tough.

The Liberals also promised a tax credit for hiring youth. However, that is also missing from Bill C-29. Young people really are the forgotten ones in this bill. Just look at the lack of funding for youth organizations.

My riding has three youth consultation forums. One is in Vaudreuil-Soulanges, a second one is in Beauharnois-Salaberry, and the third is in Haut-Saint-Laurent. During the three meetings I had with over 100 youth organizations, everyone agreed that the Liberal budget does not include any investments for prevention.

The Conservatives made cuts, and then the Liberals came along and said they wanted to focus on youth and give them the tools they need to thrive. However, there is nothing for prevention, nothing for mental health, nothing to tackle crime and drug addiction. In my riding, Salaberry—Suroît, those three issues are related to a great many problems. When has this government ever talked about investing in youth programs and prevention? It never has, unfortunately.

Problems related to housing, homelessness, and youth suicide persist.

The NDP recently moved a motion calling on the government to reinvest in child services for first nations. This year alone, there is a shortfall of $155 million. In the end, the Liberals voted in favour of our motion after initially being opposed to it.

However, there is nothing in the budget to suggest that there will be a reinvestment. No announcement has been made on reinvesting in first nations youth. In January, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found that by failing to provide recurring investment year after year, the Government of Canada was demonstrating systemic discrimination and racism toward first nations children. How can this still be happening in 2016? There are cases where 25 young people are crammed into a substandard home and have limited access to drinking water, education, and health care. The Jordan principle is not always applied. Still, the Liberals are patting themselves on the back and imposing time allocation. They see no problem. They think the bill should be sent to committee right quick so that we can study it there. It is unbelievable.

That is not the only measure affecting youth services. Young people were supposed to receive $105 million, as announced in budget 2016, to help them gain work and life experience while also supporting communities. However, those funds still have yet to be allocated, and there is nothing on that in this bill. Young people are important, but the federal government is not taking any meaningful action that reflects that.

On the subject of legalizing marijuana, no new funds have been announced for prevention. In my riding, organizations like Liberté de choisir work on preventing addiction. According to them, every time the Prime Minister talks about legalizing marijuana, young people think it means that they can use it, because he said it was legal. This demonstrates a lack of awareness and a lack of prevention. This government has not announced anything on that. The Prime Minister is putting young people at risk by saying these things without giving the organizations and groups that work with young users the tools they need.

In a French article entitled “Légalisation du cannabis: les intervenants jeunesse aux aguets”, which was published two days ago on November 13, 2016, Jean-Sébastien Fallu, a professor at the University of Montreal's École de psychoéducation, stated:

Unfortunately, very few investments are made in prevention. When it comes to drugs, nearly 90% of the funding is allocated to the court system or addiction treatments.

I could talk for a long time about youth, but I would like to move on to other things. The Liberals have been bragging about lowering taxes for the middle class. However, if we look at this measure even just a little more closely, we see that the Liberals are lowering taxes for those who earn $45,000 or more. Over half the population earns less than $45,000, and these people will not benefit from a lower tax rate. Is that what working for the middle class and reducing inequality in Canada looks like? Personally, I do not agree with that.

The Liberals are also saying that they are going to help lift seniors out of poverty. However, they are only focusing on seniors who live alone. Seniors living alone will be entitled to more guaranteed income supplement benefits. That is a step in the right direction. However, what about those who do not live alone? Do they not also have the right to live out of poverty? Can the government not also increase their guaranteed income supplement benefits and make sure that those benefits are paid out automatically?

Many of the people who come to my office have heard about this measure, but they do not know what to do. They do not have the tools they need. They do not have Internet access. Most of our seniors live in difficult circumstances.

I would like to wrap up with some comments on employment insurance, where there are still problems. Only four in 10 workers have access to employment insurance even though all workers pay premiums. Six out of 10 workers who need help are denied the benefits, never mind those with serious illnesses. The people who help these individuals are entitled to 26 weeks of employment insurance compassionate care benefits, but the individuals who are gravely ill are entitled to just 15 weeks of benefits. That makes absolutely no sense. There are still problems, and we still need to talk about them.

It makes no sense to impose closure.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member talks about equality. I would challenge the member to tell the House when there was a more progressive budget than the one we are talking about today. There would be a redistribution of wealth of great significance where we would have a substantial increase to Canada's wealthiest, in terms of a tax; we would have the middle-class tax break, which would help everyone, from health care workers, firefighters, factory workers; we would greatly enhance the Canada child benefit; we would have a substantial increase to the guaranteed income supplement; and there is a litany of other things that would be redistributing Canada's wealth. Yet, the NDP seems to have chosen to vote against these types of measures.

The question for the member, specifically, is, can she indicate, to the best of her knowledge, if there was another budget in the last 30 or 40 years that has been more progressive than the one that we are actually voting on today.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it would have been really nice if my colleague from Winnipeg North had taken the time to listen to everything I said because he would never have stood up and said that to me. In fact, once upon a time, my colleague had this to say about time allocation:

It is undemocratic and a type of abuse, as a rule, of the House of Commons of Canada.

Those are his own words, and now his government is imposing time allocation.

With regard to inequalities, since the member talked about the Canada child benefit, it has been shown that the Liberals’ benefit will not be indexed for four years. Therefore, families who thought they would receive more money from that child benefit than from the Conservatives’ benefit are realizing they have been duped. Because the indexing will not take place for four years, they will lose $5,500.

My colleague also talked about tax breaks. I will repeat what I said about that, since he probably did not understand: the tax breaks do not affect people who earn $45,000 or less per year, which is more than half the population. More than nine million people will not benefit from that measure.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there are going to be many areas of disagreement, obviously, but one area of agreement I think that we have with the NDP is that we believe that social spending needs to be sustainable. We believe that, in the long term, we need to have a plan for getting the revenue for the spending. We cannot just promise things and do so on the basis of massive deficits that are then going to lead to cuts in the future. I think most opposition members understand the importance of having a balanced budget over the long term.

I wonder if the member would comment on that. Really, how many spending promises from the government are not real spending promises? Given how far ahead of actual revenue it is with spending, it knows these are going to lead to cuts; it knows it cannot sustain the promises it has made to people; it knows, in the long term, that these things are not going to be in place for people. Why is the government making commitments that are clearly not costed and not paid for?

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who has asked some very relevant questions.

The Liberals promised that they would only run up a deficit of about $10 billion if they were elected. Now, we realize that that deficit has tripled and future generations will bear that burden.

Since we are talking about measures that were not announced by the Liberals and are being announced in this budget, let us talk about infrastructure. They said they would invest in infrastructure that would meet the needs of communities for public transit and green infrastructure. However, as if by magic, we are now hearing that there will be a lot of privatization. When we talk about privatization, we are talking about companies whose primary goal is to make a profit and not to meet the public needs of the community.

Once again, the Liberals are pulling a rabbit out of their hat. No one saw that coming, and they themselves had not announced it. Now, we are stuck with it, because they decided to tell us about it at the last minute. This goes against the public interest of Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak about Bill C-29, which implements a number of important elements of the 2016 budget. I proudly support this budget, because it represents the best that this country has to offer its citizens.

I have been following Canadian federal politics closely for more than 20 years, especially during the more than seven years that I worked as a constituency assistant, a parliamentary assistant and now as a member of Parliament. As a result, I have seen many budgets and changes, many attempts to try out new ideas, and numerous mistakes.

The bill before us is not just an annual budget intended to stay the course with policies that did not work before, in hopes that they will work this time. On the contrary, it is a budget that focuses on our future. It lays the groundwork for years of even better budgets, investments and innovations.

In the economic update presented a few weeks ago, new investments were announced. As the MP for a very rural riding, I am pleased to see a new $2-billion investment, as a first step, for rural infrastructure priorities.

We need to make up for the decades of negligence the regions have suffered. That money, along with $180 billion for infrastructure in many categories that are not specific to the regions, demonstrates the government's interest and its plans to deliver on that.

Where I come from, high-speed Internet access is a very important issue. As far as we are concerned, all socio-economic issues can be linked to high-speed Internet access. The government allocated $500 million for this in the budget. That money cannot come quickly enough. However, we are not so naive as to believe that this small amount is going to solve the problem of rural Internet access after 20 years of failures in digital communication. That money is merely a first step. I am very proud to finally see a forward-looking budget that focuses on long-term planning after 10 years of mismanagement.

I know the Conservatives will ask me how we can plan anything with such large deficits. It does not surprise me that they keep asking that question. For years, they looked at their own deficits and had no idea what to do about them or where they came from, even as they cut taxes and investment in our economy. They actually increased the national debt by more than $150 billion. Year after year, the Conservatives never stopped to think about how future generations would pay off the debt they accumulated.

The Conservatives eliminated government revenue sources and spent willy-nilly. They did not have an infrastructure plan to build the country and our future. They fixed potholes and built gazebos. They spent, but they did not invest, with the possible exception being economic action plan posters, which sprouted up all over the country like mushrooms.

During this debate, the Conservatives have repeatedly questioned whether paying taxes is the way to go. They do not believe that taxes are society's best tool for sharing common costs. They do not agree that it is the government's responsibility to manage that money and spend it in the country's best interest.

Clearly, our job is to improve the lives of all Canadians. However, I can assure the House that we are not going to change things just by listening to the Conservatives. It will take concrete action by the government, and that means spending money in almost every case.

As far as I am concerned, it is obvious that the government has an important role to play in the economy. As I said during yesterday's debate, taxes allow us to pool our resources in order to pay for the expenses shared by our society. The role of government is to improve citizens' lives and it does that by managing these pooled resources, in short, taxes.

We should be talking more about citizens rather than taxpayers. We often do not consider the goal of the institution we work for and the reason why we are here. When the Conservatives imply that the government has no useful role or function, or that taxes are nothing more than a burden for citizens and business, they have completely missed the point.

I find it amusing that the Conservatives are complaining about the government moving forward with enhancements to the Canada pension plan when they have a parliamentary pension plan. They complain about the fact that the government collects taxes and decides how to spend them to improve people's lives, but they do not turn down their own salaries, benefits, or their parliamentary budget.

They know that, as members of the government and members of Parliament, we have the vital role of managing common resources and expenditures and of debating the best ways to improve the lives of our fellow Canadians.

Accordingly, I believe that, eventually, we should consider the possibility of ensuring that all Canadians have a guaranteed minimum income. This idea has been debated in many countries by many generations and may have been around for as long as the debate on whether to annex Turks and Caicos, a measure that I am also not likely to oppose.

Because so many aspects of our society are becoming automated, one day, there may not be enough work for all Canadians. However, I may be wrong, but I believe that that day is still a long way off.

One of my favourite movies is The Gods Must be Crazy. The beginning of this South African and Botswanan movie from the 1980s explains how society becomes more modernized. We have created technology to simplify our lives, but the more simplified our lives become, the more complex the technology becomes. We need more education to understand our simplified lives, which are in fact becoming more complicated.

To come back to what I was saying, the Canada child benefit, which provides parents with up to $6,400 a year per child, is a type of guaranteed minimum income. We already have a guaranteed minimum income for seniors in the form of the guaranteed income supplement, which we increased by 10% in the budget for those who need it most. The idea is already present in our social structures because one of the shared commitments we made as a society was to take care of those who do not have the means or ability to take care of themselves.

Our budget therefore includes a number of components that focus on improving our future. Investments in infrastructure are essential, but we have to run a deficit to make those investments because our infrastructure is already in a deficit situation.

For example, Internet access in our regions is often so unreliable that it is having a significant harmful effect on our economy. Many of our roads are in disrepair. It is estimated that only 400,000 km of Canada's one million kilometres of roads are paved. The investment needs of indigenous communities are so great that I cannot even begin to describe them here. It costs money to make all of these changes and fix these long-standing problems. However, all these investments will improve the quality of life of Canadians in the short term and strengthen our economy in the long term.

Yes, we must go into debt to get there, but our society is already in debt, whether we are talking about our roads, our communities, or our basic infrastructure. By investing, we are simply quantifying this deficit.

With a stronger economy, improved infrastructure, and essential investments, government revenues will increase without hurting the economy and the deficits will start to go down. We have the record to prove it. There has not been a Liberal Prime Minister since confederation who has not managed to balance at least one budget. The only exception was when no budget was tabled. As for the Conservatives' record, the opposite is true.

The good news about infrastructure in the budget does not stop there. I initially had concerns about the idea of an infrastructure bank that the private sector would contribute to, as I consider myself more left-leaning. However, I now understand how we might benefit from it and I see the tremendous potential. I am by no means an expert on this, but if it is done correctly the possibilities are immense.

Private-public funding of infrastructure gives us the chance to finally address the issue of high-speed Internet access in the regions, seriously address the issue of affordable housing, and build other green, social, and traditional infrastructure where traditionally user-pay models are used, without giving up on the idea that infrastructure should belong to the public sector. It is quite interesting and I look forward to following this project.

I am proud of our budget, Bill C-29 and of our government's plans and I am not afraid to say so.

Parti Québécois

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, “I never thought I could be as proud to be a Quebecker as I am tonight”, said an emotional René Lévesque during the Parti Québécois' victory on November 15, 1976. It was an historic victory and the theme was “Beginning today, tomorrow belongs to us”.

Over the following years, the Lévesque government would express that pride through the Act to govern the financing of political parties, the Act respecting the preservation of agricultural land and agricultural activities, anti-scab legislation, the Charter of the French Language, and Quebec's first referendum on sovereignty. Tomorrow belonged to us.

Forty years later, the Bloc Québécois commends these men and women who contributed to forging the unique identity of the people of Quebec, who, let us not forget, are “something akin to a great people”.

Thank you, René.

Pat Quinn

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Hockey Hall of Fame has added new stars to the galaxy: Eric Lindros, Sergei Makarov, Rogatien Vachon, and my old friend and neighbour Pat Quinn.

Pat was born and raised in the east end of Hamilton and lived a life that brought honour to his family, his neighbourhood, his city, and his country.

Pat was one of hockey's greatest coaches, a darn good hockey player, an all-round athlete, a scholar, a family man, and a guy who never forgot the people with whom he grew up.

I first knew Pat as a baseball player on our 1955 championship team. He was the best player, but mostly he was a big, tough, friendly guy we were glad to have on our side. Pat was one of the greatest Toronto Maple Leaf coaches, and coached Canada to two world junior hockey championships and an Olympic gold medal.

Pat was kind enough to endorse his old baseball teammate when I ran successfully for mayor of Hamilton, because despite all his success, including membership now in the Hockey Hall of Fame, Pat Quinn never forgot his roots.

2016 U.S. Election

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, our Prime Minister was elected just over one year ago. Although not my choice, I personally congratulated him and assured him that I would pray for him and wish on him God's blessings.

Democracy can be messy, and election campaigns often bring out the worst in people. We have seen that.

I would like to congratulate Donald Trump on becoming president-elect, as well as the newly elected and re-elected members of Congress and state governors. The United States is, and will remain, Canada's closest friend. Our unique relationship is time honoured. We have been friends, partners, and allies for nearly 150 years.

My focus will continue to be on bilateral initiatives that will help move our economy forward, create jobs, promote trade, and enhance our collective security.

My riding of Provencher shares a significant stretch of border with the United States, and I will be encouraging our government to continue to enhance the special relationship we have with our long-time friends and neighbours.

May God continue to bless America. God bless Donald Trump.

Leonard Cohen

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I quote from The Partisan by Leonard Cohen:

When they poured across the border
I was cautioned to surrender,
this I could not do;
I took my gun and vanished.
I have changed my name so often,
I've lost my wife and children....
There were three of us this morning
I'm the only one this evening
but I must go on;
the frontiers are my prison.
Oh, the wind, the wind is blowing,
through the graves the wind is blowing,
freedom soon will come;...

The Germans were at my home
They told me to surrender
But this I could not do
...
I have changed names a hundred times
I have lost wife and children
But I have so many friends
And I have all of France

An old man in an attic
Hid us for the night
The Germans captured him
He died without surprise

Oh, the wind, the wind is blowing,
through the graves the wind is blowing,
freedom soon will come;
then we'll come from the shadows.

Rest in peace, Leonard.

SaskTel

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in most parts of Canada the federal government has struggled to foster competitive telecommunications to lower prices for consumers. In Saskatchewan, phone companies face stiff competition, and consumers enjoy the lowest prices in Canada. That is because we own SaskTel, a crown corporation dedicated to providing good service at affordable prices across our province.

Unfortunately, Brad Wall's SaskParty has presented legislation allowing it to start privatizing SaskTel without the approval of the Saskatchewan people. However, such a deal may require the approval of the federal Competition Bureau, the CRTC, and the minister of industry.

If the federal government is truly committed to competitive telecommunications and consumer protection, it should strive to keep SaskTel public.

Sikh Community

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, thousands of Sikhs in Canada and all across this world celebrated the birth of Guru Nanak Dev Ji. He was a man of towering intellect with a fierce passion for community service and he spent his entire life helping others and fighting for equality.

Guru Nanak stressed the importance of meditation, Naam Japna; selfless service Seva; sharing Vand Ke Chakna; and hard work, Kirt Karni. These laid the principles of the Sikh way of life.

Canada is proud to be the home of one of the largest Sikh communities outside of India, and these values of love, compassion, and serving humanity and the community are evident every day.

For example, yesterday, Seva Food Bank, in coordination with CJMR Radio 1320, raised over $115,000 for their food bank, which will help alleviate food insecurity for the region of Peel.

Happy Gurpurab and congratulations to—

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

The hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.