Debates of Dec. 2nd, 2016

Report Stage

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

Mr. Speaker, I will follow up on the remarks by the hon. member and Minister of International Development and La Francophonie by saying that I am somewhat surprised to see a time allocation motion after just an hour of debate on Bill C-29 at report stage. That is really surprising.

Usually members are given more time to consider the many amendments proposed at report stage. Several amendments were announced. Unfortunately, we debated at report stage from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m and then suddenly, after an hour of debate, we learned that the time for debating Bill C-29 would be limited.

Could my colleague comment in real time on the fact that the government intends to allocate a specific amount of time for the study of the bill at report stage?

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

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from Sherbrooke, I was in the last Parliament. These types of motions were came up regularly, and any real negotiation on the length of the debates on the bills was immaterial.

When the Liberals were in the opposition, they complained about this tactic by the Conservatives, but here they are using it themselves. In fact, they are using it for bills that represent our most fundamental work in Parliament, in other words, budget bills.

I do not get it. I would like a minister or a Liberal member, especially those who were here during the 41st Parliament, to explain to us why they now have no problem adopting the same tactics and approach as the Conservative government, whose approach they once condemned.

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

Mr. Speaker, the NDP might want to reconsider in terms of how they might be voting on the issue of the budget implementation bill. The budget implementation bill ultimately implements the budget, and we see a very progressive budget.

Could the member enlighten the House as to when he believes there has been a more progressive budget than we currently have, one that does so much for so many Canadians, whether it is the tax break for the middle class, the enhancement of the Canada child benefit program, or the enhancement of the guaranteed income supplement?

It does so much for every region of our country. Why not support the budget implementation bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is the thing: saying it is progressive, does not make it so; saying that the climate change targets set up by the Conservatives are progressive, does not make it so; saying that the trade agreements negotiated by the Conservatives are progressive agreements, does not make it so. Really, the varnish is starting to be removed from this whole fabrication of the Liberals.

The Liberals are saying that their budget is so progressive, that so many Canadians will benefit from their tax cuts. Well, no, actually it leaves out over 23 million Canadians and benefits merely 9% of the population. This is not progressive. It is basically taking from the rich to give to the little less rich.

Our concern is the fact that most of those earning less than $90,000 a year would benefit little, if at all. They have actually been completely abandoned by the Liberals. This is why we are objecting to the direction that the Liberals are headed. I have not even started to talk about the infrastructure commitment, which, honestly, is going nowhere at this point.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what the member just said is factually incorrect.

How can the member say that when he knows full well that the guaranteed income supplement is affecting those individual seniors making less than $20,000 in a tangible way, and when we are lifting tens of thousands of children out of poverty?

What the member just said is factually incorrect. Does the member understand what this budget is actually doing for a majority of Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, even a broken clock gives the right time twice a day.

The GIS increase is actually something we welcomed. However, when we are saying that the Canada child benefit will benefit more kids, that might be the case for now, but the Liberals are leaving it unindexed for four years, which will bring it back to close to what it would have been otherwise under the previous government.

I do not think the miracles that the Liberals are claiming they are doing right now are actually true and factually accurate.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-29, which implements certain provisions of the budget tabled in March.

I am pleased to speak today because I am very proud to see that our government is keeping its promises and commitments to Canadians, the middle class, families, seniors, students, workers, retirees, and veterans. All of these people work or worked very hard and deserve a good quality of life and better futures. These people often struggle to make ends meet; they need measures to help them meet their everyday needs. That is what our budget measures do.

Talking about the budget provides me with an opportunity not only to express my support for Bill C-29 but also to talk about the people in my riding who will be affected by the provisions of this bill. These people put their trust in the Liberal Party. They put their trust in me by voting for me in October 2015, and I thank them from the bottom of my heart for their support. I can tell them today that they made the right choice. They voted for the right party. The bill before us today is further proof of that.

Many measures in the 2016 budget address the concerns and interests of the people, businesses, and communities in Laval. Even today, 11% of Alfred-Pellan's population is comprised of low-income earners. These people need help to meet their most important need, which is housing. The Liberal budget makes major investments of $1.5 billion over two years to improve access to safe, adequate, and affordable housing.

Other vulnerable people benefit from this budget's measures. The Canada child benefit will finally give more to those who need it most. This measure will lift 300,00 children in Canada out of poverty. In my riding, it will benefit 14,505 families with children, who will no longer pay taxes on this benefit, and will have the full amount at their disposal.

During a community event at the church in Vimont last week, Joe, a constituent with no political affiliation or interest in politics, told me that the $425 a month makes a big difference. This measure will mainly help the 5,290 single parent families in Alfred-Pellan, which will receive more money to help provide better living conditions for their children. This benefit is much more generous than the benefits provided by the previous government and it gives more money than before to families with children. Families will see their benefits increase by almost $2,300 on average in 2016-17. This will allow families like Joe's to buy winter clothing, groceries, school supplies, and clothing. It will allow other families, like that of Marie-Carmelle and Robert, to save for their children's education.

Let us also talk about seniors, Canada's human legacy. Our government knows how important it is to improve their quality of life. For that reason, the budget includes such measures as the OAS enhancement. We also recently announced the enhancement of CPP benefits. This will ensure a comfortable and dignified retirement for our seniors who built the Canada of today.

As my Aunt Giuseppina said, after so much sacrifice and hard work, she can finally rest assured that she will not be a burden to her children. Her savings and her government are all she needs to live with dignity. That gives us a good sense of what these measures mean to people.

Bill C-29 implements some very specific measures from the last budget. These measures are part of our overall plan to stimulate economic growth in the short term and, most importantly, pave the way for a strong economy in the long term. Our country has the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. This is the right time to invest for our future success and to ensure a prosperous and green future for current and coming generations, a future in which everyone has a chance to succeed.

As a father, I want to make sure that my son, Gabriel, who is almost three years old, has a sustainable, prosperous future full of opportunity. That is what my parents did for me. That is what informs my day-to-day work as an MP: the prosperity and well-being of the people of Alfred-Pellan. They expect their MP and their government to understand what things are like for them and to pass budgets that reflect their reality and help them make the most of their lives.

Let us not forget our veterans, those who sacrificed so much to preserve our dearest values and uphold the peace in land and all over the world.

The government will give back to veterans, who have given so much in service to all Canadians, by restoring critical access to services that were recklessly cut by the previous government and ensuring the long-term financial security of disabled veterans. Canada's veterans will receive more local, in-person government services as well as better access to case managers.

Last week, I discussed with a very concerned constituent the issues of unemployment. Mario, a 55-year-old hard-working gentleman, found himself laid off from his job and wanted to know how our government would help him and the thousands of people in the same position. I assured Mario that the changes to the current EI system that we were proposing would give Canadians the help they need when they needed it, be it the changes to eligibility rules, which would make it easier for new workers and those re-entering the workplace to claim benefits; the reduction of the waiting period from two weeks to one week, which would provide unemployed workers with hundreds of dollars more at the time they needed it most; or the extension of employment insurance benefits in regions affected by the collapse of the price of oil and other commodities that would be aimed to ease the burden of Canadians in parts of Alberta, Saskatchewan, northern Ontario, and Newfoundland.

Our Prime Minister has deployed enormous efforts to make Canada once again a leader on the international stage. Helping international development for Canadian businesses and to ensure that our financial sector remains strong, we will strengthen the framework that regulates financial institutions and balance the need for stability and competition with the needs of consumers and businesses.

Moreover, as a matter of fairness for all taxpayers, the government will seek to prevent underground economic activity and tax evasion, and combat tax loopholes.

We will invest in effective administration and enforcement of tax laws and we will propose actions to improve the integrity of Canada's tax system.

All these measures define my unwavering support to Bill C-29. I invite all members to reflect on the benefits Bill C-29 has for Canadians and join in support of the bill.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as we just heard from one of the ministers in the government, the Liberals are going to move time allocation again next week. It will be the tenth time they have moved notice. Why are they ceasing debate on the bill at this point?

As a new member in the House, I was looking forward to an opportunity to hear what other members had to say about Bill C-29. Now we are not going to get that opportunity. Does the member really think that 337 members are going to show up to a committee in the Senate at some point, perhaps new witnesses, to further talk about this?

The Liberals are proposing to spend billions upon billions of dollars in the future with very little return on it. We have seen what their jobs plan has been for Canada and Alberta: No net new jobs. They have completely failed. Why is his government in such a rush to shut down debate in the House and spend billions of taxpayer dollars?

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

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

Bill C-29 implements certain measures of budget 2016, a budget that marks a turning point after 10 years, during which the only objective was to avoid a deficit—but at what cost? Seniors, children, women, veterans, low-income Canadians, and basically anyone who is vulnerable, all paid the price. This is all not to mention the cuts to programs related to science, R and D, and the environment.

Our government knows that now is the time to invest in order to create high-quality jobs, lift hundreds of thousands of kids out of poverty, help young people with their post-secondary education, and invest in R and D to make Canada a great place to invest in potential new businesses.

These measures are associated with a long-term vision for a prosperous future. We are a government that understands the day-to-day reality of middle-class Canadians. That is why we are targeting our measures and our investments, so that the middle class and those working hard to join it stand to benefit the most.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his speech. He talked about numerous positive measures in the budget.

I want to come back to one specific point. He touched on the benefits for seniors. Under Bill C-29, couples who are receiving the guaranteed income supplement and the spouse's allowance but have to live apart for reasons beyond their control, such as the need for long-term care, will each receive benefits based on their individual income.

For the benefit of those watching us, can the member elaborate on this and paint a clearer picture of what this really means for many senior couples?

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very insightful and very important question for the seniors in my riding and across Canada.

As we know, ageing has its downsides. Unfortunately, loss of autonomy and illness are in store for many seniors. These conditions sometimes mean, for instance, that a spouse has to stay at a long-term care facility or an assisted-living facility. This means that the couple has to live apart. Just imagine the cost related to this involuntary and heartbreaking separation for so many couples. These tough situations only add to their financial burden.

Through our measure, the benefits a couple will be entitled to will not be based on their combined income, but on the income of the beneficiary, which in many cases will allow them to have a higher benefit and better meet their growing needs.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join this debate, which I know now be a very brief debate because of the notice of motion the government has brought forward. I appreciate the opportunity to address it nonetheless.

We hear the government speak often about the issue of sustainability. Sustainability is a very important concept. It is about maintaining the things we are enjoying and have created into the future so our children and grandchildren will be able to enjoy the same quality of an environment, the same standard of living, the same standard in social programs that we enjoy today.

What needs to be underlined with the fiscal policy of the government is that it is very clearly unsustainable. There are certain instances where it makes sense to run timely, targeted, and temporary deficits. However, it does not make sense to have an intentionally unsustainable fiscal policy, one in which promises are made that cannot be maintained over the long term, and programs are created that will have to be cut in the future.

Commitments are made with regard to spending on infrastructure, spending on social programs, and taxes that the government knows cannot possibly last. It is setting people up for disappointment, just as it did on the electoral reform file, by the way. However, on fiscal policy and social programs as well, the government is setting people up for disappointment with its unsustainable fiscal approach.

Let us be very clear about contrasting the approach of the Liberal government with that of the previous Conservative government. I would never accuse members of the government of lying, certainly that is unparliamentary. However, there is a clear dissonance between the reality and the things government members have said.

Let us be very clear about the record in this respect. We heard the parliamentary secretary again claim that Stephen Harper added over $150 billion to the national debt. That is a clear instance of dissonance between the realities and the comments made by the parliamentary secretary.

The reality of the record is that managing Canada's finances through the worst economic recession since the Great Depression, the previous Conservative government, over the course of its tenured office, reduced the overall debt-to-GDP ratio. The numbers are very clear. When former prime minister Stephen Harper took power, the federal debt-to-GDP ratio was 34.1%. When he left office, the federal debt-to-GDP ratio was at 31%. Very clearly, there was a lowering of the federal debt-to-GDP ratio during the time in which the previous Conservative government was in power.

Yes, stimulative deficits were undertaken during a very significant global economic crisis, but they were done in a way such that not only did we return to balanced budgets, but the overall debt-to-GDP ratio went down.

In terms of raw, nominal numbers, a total over $128.5 billion was added to the national debt, much lower than $150 billion. What is the significance of the difference in numbers? It simply illustrates that there is a clear dissonance between the talking points being cited by the various government members and what Canadians can find if they look at the government's own website with respect to the numbers. Again, it was a lower number than was quoted in terms of additions to the national deficit and a reduction in the debt-to-GDP ratio.

It is worth adding in this context that if we try to figure out what the government is talking about when it comes up with this $150 billion, some have speculated that maybe it is only counting the amount that was added to the national debt during deficit years, not including the amount that was subtracted during the various Conservative surpluses.

Then we wonder whether it was only those years that the government was counting and not the other years. Even if we only count those years, it adds up to $145 billion. The government is still off. Again, it is certainly not misleading the House but creating a situation of dissonance between what is actually happening, according to the finance minister's website, and what the words are that are coming from the government. Again, I encourage Canadians to verify those facts. They are very clearly in black and white, and can be found on the Finance Canada website.

That is the current reality. The plan from this finance minister involves not only a dramatic increase in the national debt, a greater increase over the one term, hopefully, of the current government, but a greater increase in debt than has happened during the worst global financial crisis. That is happening while we are not in a time of global financial crisis. Also, the Minister of Finance's plan involves increasing significantly the debt-to-GDP ratio. According to TD forecasts, the Liberals' spending will take the debt-to-GDP ratio to 38%. Again, the debt-to-GDP ratio went down from 34.1%, when the previous prime minister Stephen Harper took office, to 31% when he left office. Now, according to these estimates, it will go up to 38% under the current Liberal government.

The question here is not whether there are certain situations where we can run a deficit; the question is whether we have a sustainable fiscal policy. The finance minister has been asked before if it is his view that the government should ever balance the budget. He has repeatedly declined to answer that question. We have had the suggestion that Liberal governments clean up the budgets in the long term, in the fullness of time. However, it is right for us as the opposition, and for Canadians, to ask what is the fullness of time in this context, because the budget projections do not show any return to a balanced budget at any point.

We have not had any kind of estimate in that respect at all. We simply know that the Liberals intend to dramatically increase the debt levels at a time when we are not in the midst of a global financial crisis. They will significantly increase the federal debt-to-GDP ratio, and that creates an unsustainable situation, one in which all of their glorious promises, whether on social policy, on infrastructure, on spending on the environment, will unfortunately lead to painful cuts in the future, unless we get back on to a track of real fiscal sustainability.

Let us underline, as well, that when we talk about the federal debt-to-GDP ratio, people like to compare Canada to other countries and say we have a much lower federal debt-to-GDP ratio than those other countries. However, Canada is different, insofar as we have provincial and municipal governments that provide a much greater share of public services than are provided at the subnational level in other states. When we are doing international comparisons in terms of the challenges we face in debt in this country, we should look at total government debt, not just federal debt to GDP. We have the Province of Ontario led by a Liberal government. The Province of Ontario is the most indebted sub-sovereign borrower on the planet. Our total government debt-to-GDP ratio is quite high. It is similar to levels in the United States, the U.K., and other countries.

We cannot, at all, take our position for granted. It is important that we have a real plan for fiscal sustainability over the long term, and we are not seeing this from the government. Not only are we seeing a misstatement of the record, but we are seeing a complete absence of a plan when it comes to the long term.

There is an important question that the government needs to answer, and hopefully it will have time to answer in the much-shortened debate that the Liberals have given us. That is, at what point will the Liberals be prepared to learn from what is happening in the real economy?

They have undertaken a dangerous experiment, one that I would argue we have every reason to already know the results of. They claim that this massively unsustainable fiscal policy they have undertaken will somehow stimulate the economy. Let us be very clear that this is not at all the traditional economics of stimulus. John Maynard Keynes would be rolling in his grave by the extent to which he has been misused by the current government. He believed that we should run targeted temporary deficits, that it was acceptable to run deficits during years of relative struggle, and that it would create a counter-circular push, but then the savings had to come on the other side. The current government's plan is long-term, constant deficits.

When will the Liberals learn the lesson? It has been a year, and they are still talking about slow growth. Unemployment is where it was a year ago.

I would like to know at what point the government will change its course if its plan does not work. Will it take two years, three years? Will it at some point realize it is not working and that it needs to go back to the policy of the previous Conservative government? I hope the Liberals will do that sooner rather than later.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, every time members on that side of the House get up and give a speech about debt, I am struck by their temerity. They watched as the previous government, a government that was reimbursing Canadian debt, that was reimbursing debts incurred by previous Conservative administrations, and doing it even before the financial crisis, then proceeded to rack up nine consecutive years of structural deficit. Those members now have the temerity to walk into the House and ask about deficit and debt under this Liberal administration. We are trying to dig out from under low commodity prices that the Conservatives presided over, an infrastructure deficit, a social deficit, and any other kind of deficit one would care to mention.

Where was that member when the previous government was racking up debt on our children and grandchildren for nine consecutive years?

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

Mr. Speaker, to answer the member's question directly about where I was when the previous government racked up debt for nine consecutive years, I was clearly reading completely different newspapers than he was at the time, and perhaps looking at a different Finance Canada website.

I laid out the numbers clearly. It is breathtaking how willing government members are to completely misstate the fiscal record when it is very clearly laid out on their own government website. I gave that information: timely, temporary, and targeted deficits during the worst global financial crisis since the Great Depression, which simulated the economy. Over the Harper years, there was a reduction in the debt-to-GDP ratio from 34.1% to 31%. The member needs to check his facts, because he is shouting incorrect numbers across the floor. The debt-to-GDP ratio went from 34.1% to 31% over the Harper years. The finance minister's plan calls for an increase from 31% to 38%, according to TD Bank forecasts, in terms of the debt-to-GDP ratio, and this is at a time when we are not in the midst of a global financial crisis. These are just the basic numbers.

Just because government members say it, does not make it true; Canadians can check the record. Canadians can check the facts.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if it seems like money is being managed responsibly, then it is easier to tolerate debt under certain circumstances.

In this case, rural municipalities thought they were getting money for desperately needed infrastructure projects. Now all of a sudden that money is going into an infrastructure bank, where projects will only be considered if they are worth at least $100 million. In other words, none of the rural community projects will be getting any of this money.

I recently found out that the Liberal government decided to award a $74,000 contract, or the cost of two cars, to determine how much pot costs on the black market. A consultant was given $74,000 to come up with an answer, when the police already know how much pot costs on the black market.

What does my colleague think of the government's management? Does he believe that the government is managing money responsibly, which might justify the debt, or does its approach seem entirely improvised?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague represents a constituency that includes a significant rural component, as do I. It is important that we have a government that understands the infrastructure needs that exist across the country, not just in our big cities. There is a lot of concern in my constituency, and I suspect in my colleague's as well, that the way the government is acting does not show much regard for the needs and the importance of rural Canada.

When we are talking about deficits, I appreciate that there are certain cases where it makes sense to run a deficit, but there is a need for sustainability. The Conservatives and the NDP have different philosophies about certain things, but we recognize the need to have balanced budgets, to have sustainability. If the government is going to make a commitment, whether it is to increase transfers, to lower taxes, to increase spending on a social program, that commitment has to be costed; it has to be paid for. If the government makes a commitment without any kind of plan for fiscal sustainability, then people need to know it is not going to happen over the long term.

[Neil Ellis, Liberal, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-29, the budget implementation act.

Prior to my role as the member for the Bay of Quinte, I served for eight years as the mayor of the City of Belleville. My municipal experience gave me a full appreciation of the impact that infrastructure has on our communities.

The city of Belleville, having a population of 50,000, and being a small urban municipality, has many infrastructure deficits. Investments in infrastructure provide communities with safe roads, clean water and air, efficient transportation networks, and so much more. Our infrastructure needs have outpaced our investments for decades, and at significant cost.

The perfect storm is here. It is hurting our communities. It is very important that we keep driving investment and finding new alternative ways to support the needs of our communities.

Neglected aging infrastructure directly contributes to traffic congestion, which pollutes the air and stifles the productivity of our workers and businesses. It contributes to boil water advisories that affect the health of entire communities. It means that our seniors have a harder time accessing essential services, and that some of our population have great difficulty finding safe and affordable places to live.

As I have personally experienced, underfunded infrastructure puts our cities at a competitive disadvantage. When competing to attract top companies, either the local market or the global market, it is hard to create good-paying jobs without proper infrastructure.

The City of Belleville was like so many other communities across Canada, starved for infrastructure funding and facing a mounting infrastructure deficit. Upon being elected as mayor, I began to see first-hand just how large this infrastructure deficit was in our community, and how it was growing with no real plan to fix it.

Speaking with my colleagues at AMO, association of Ontario mayors, 444 of us excluding Toronto, I realized that most municipalities in Ontario had aging infrastructure. I was finding in my community that we were not unique. Small urban communities and cities across Canada were in a similar position. There was simply no infrastructure funding to meet the needs of municipalities. The tax system with municipalities is basically property taxes and user fees. Municipalities provide 66% of our services in Ontario, yet collect only around 8¢ on the tax dollar.

The City of Belleville, an average small city, has over $3.5 billion worth of assets. This includes roads, bridges—69 bridges, I believe—public facilities, water, waste water plants, which were all built in the forties, fifties and sixties. However, they never had an asset management plan to keep these structures in repair.

After examining this asset management plan, I realized that our city was in trouble. We had approximately 350 in terms of millions of dollars in a past deficit that was hidden, a deficit that was not on our books, and a deficit that kept growing out of control. It was a construction deficit that was increasing at the time between 5% and 10%. We had interest rates that we were able to acquire at approximately 2.5% locked in. It is all about capital risk. Being a small business person myself, one of the biggest problems is obtaining capital, locked in, at an amount that could get rid of the risk.

With Infrastructure Ontario, we were able to build a plan, and our solution was a build Belleville plan. This was the second infrastructure plan to try to alleviate some of the infrastructure that was stockpiled to the city over the last 25 years.

The rationale is simple. Each year that the cost of infrastructure repairs are left and not taken care of, they increase. All of a sudden, a $300-million deficit becomes a $330-million or $340-million deficit. With infrastructure, we are not quite sure what the costs will be, so it is floating.

Coming up with a plan for locking in our capital risk, recognizing that interest rates were low, it was time to launch a plan and try to convince council that we needed to mitigate the risk of bridges collapsing. We had to mitigate the risk of not having a waste water plant that was capable of meeting our industry.

City council supported build Belleville and the $91.5 million loan for the first stage of infrastructure upgrades and maintenance. The build Belleville plan was featured in many trade publications, including Canada Business Review, Municipal World, The Undergrounder and ReNew.

The program not only attracted the attention of magazines and media, it attracted a great deal of attention from municipalities. In 2008, I was asked to speak at AMO, to all mayors about the plan.

My city is also in the plan. It expanded our industrial park by extending roads and services to build our economic base. It has put us in a very great position now to attract industry and create more jobs.

This past August, I met with local mayors to announce over $7 million in federal gas tax funding. This is specifically for municipal infrastructure projects. More recently, I held an announcement event at our local college, Loyalist College, for a $1.6-million federal investment toward a $3.2-million renovation of the Northumberland wing and health and wellness centre. The wellness centre hosts the school's highly respected practical nursing program and state-of-the-art clinical simulation lab.

This investment will make for greater energy efficiency, which has positive impacts both on the environment and the school's operating budget. Of course, it will significantly improve the learning environment and hopefully keep our youth and our community educated, and help in the workforce.

These are good reasons why it is so vitally important that we continue to work with our municipal and provincial partners across the country to develop a long-term infrastructure plan that meets the real needs of all communities across Canada.

Our government will provide more than $180 billion over 12 years for public transit, green and social infrastructure, and trade and transportation. These investments will have a dramatic impact on all communities across Canada, including small communities and rural regions. The plan provides unprecedented levels of funding for projects across the country, projects that will help create long-term economic growth; build safe, inclusive, and sustainable communities; and support a low-carbon, green economy.

Budget 2016 launched the first phase of our infrastructure plan, which will invest a total of $11.9 billion. This includes $3.4 billion for public transit systems, $5 billion for green infrastructure projects, and $3.4 billion for social infrastructure, which includes affordable housing.

During my community pre-budget consultations, our not-for-profit agencies could not stress enough the importance of investment in safe and affordable housing. The first phase of this investment makes possible repairs and upgrades to long neglected critical infrastructure. Bilateral agreements were signed with all the provinces and territories, and more than 750 projects have already been improved.

Projects are already under way in our rural and smaller communities such as: waste-water upgrades in Red Deer, hard surfacing of the Trans-Labrador Highway, upgrades to the town of Lanigan's water facilities in Saskatchewan, rehabilitation of bridges in the Northwest Territories, a new Pond Inlet small craft harbour in Nunavut, and a water treatment plant upgrade in my neighbouring town of Deseronto.

We have also made major investments in infrastructure projects for public transit that once complete will help drastically reduce congestion in our cities, and get all moms and dads home earlier, hopefully, to spend time with their families and to get their families safely home. They are things like the light rail transit in Ottawa, the Toronto Toronto Commission surface track replacement program, the Waterloo Fairview Mall transit terminal, and the Trent-Severn Waterway National Historic Site, for a total investment of $267 million.

I had the great honour, on a hot summer day, to be with a great Conservative member, the member for Simcoe North, in Peterborough to cut the ribbon on the announcement of the Trent-Severn system, which affects my community, as the Trent Port Marina in Quinte West is the start of the Trent. I invite everyone to visit the Trent Port Marina in their boats this year, and come and enjoy our wineries and our cities.

Equipping municipalities with the resources they need and access to low-risk capital is essential to sustain and grow our communities, providing the building blocks they need to thrive and succeed. Infrastructure is an essential component for healthy, vibrant communities, and creates the conditions for sustainable economic growth and development. Investments in infrastructure are investments in our future and that of our children.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask about the infrastructure bank, because that was one issue the Liberal Party did not run on in the last election, and in particular the impact of that infrastructure bank on smaller communities. We already heard many times in the House that those with a population of 100,000 or less will not benefit from this infrastructure bank.

I would also like the member's comment on this. When FCM recently visited Ottawa I met with them and I was shocked to learn that when the Prime Minister had his meeting with the equity banks and investment firms, there was not one representative from FCM at that table. I am just wondering if he could confirm that, and answer the question about the infrastructure bank.

[Neil Ellis, Liberal, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question and for his municipal experience. I know that he and I have talked about our municipal experiences.

Members are well aware of capital risk. When we look at Ontario, it has an infrastructure program that gives loans to municipalities, and gets away with that capital risk.

Smaller projects are sometimes less risky and easier to obtain funds for. However, for bigger projects that are Canada-wide or projects that need financing, it is time to look at that capital risk. If we, through the infrastructure bank, can get these projects pushed forward and get private investment, we cut down and reduce that capital risk for cities to get these projects done on time and on budget. This is what we are trying to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Bay of Quinte for his speech.

I gave my speech earlier and I was surprised that I was not confronted by some Liberal members. I made some rather serious allegations about the Liberals' lack of results with respect to infrastructure and about the infrastructure bank, which my colleague just mentioned.

Does my colleague not realize that the infrastructure bank gobbled up $15 billion that the people of his riding could have used? Does he not realize that it will not be in the infrastructure bank's interest to choose and invest in his community's projects because the population density is not as high as that of other cities, like Montreal, Toronto, or Vancouver? Does he also not realize that despite the urgent need for infrastructure investment, a point on which he and I agree, the infrastructure bank will only be set up in 2017, and two-thirds of the funds will not be available before 2021-22, or two elections from now?

I would like him to be able to reconcile what he said in his speech with these facts, which were brought to light in the government's economic and fiscal update.

[Neil Ellis, Liberal, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about time frames and planning in infrastructure, we all know that infrastructure is built for a 20- or 30-year period. In past experiences, to get infrastructure launched, it is usually three or four years to get a shovel in the ground. From past experience, when we look at a city intersection and tell the staff that they have been given all the resources and money to complete that infrastructure, by the time they do the needs study, environmental study, it takes a long time to implement programs and get them out. Therefore, it is about planning in a cycle.

My daughter attends Queen's University in an MBA program. She phoned me the other day and asked me a similar question. She said that we were planning outside the election cycle. Well, it is about looking at what the total infrastructure is, making plans out of that cycle, and building in a 10- or 15-year plan to totally create a plan that does eliminate infrastructure deficits.

If the hon. member, or any member, wants to run their next election on cancelling the infrastructure program or not extending it past our mandate, I would invite them to do that.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to rise today to address the chamber on this important subject.

Every society is judged by how well the most vulnerable fare among the rest of the population. Canada is no different. In this country, we have witnessed a spectacular decline in poverty, particularly over the last decade, under the previous government.

In the mid-1990s, poverty rates in Canada peaked. They reached a high in the mid-teens. People in the country who were at the bottom end of the economic ladder were suffering. However, gradually, over the course of the previous decade, we saw that number drop to 8.8%, which was both the lowest level in Canadian history and the biggest decline that has occurred under any government since the low-income cut-off line was established in 1976. To understand the reasons why, we have to examine the policy conditions under which it occurred.

Let us start back in 1976, when the low-income cut-off line was created. During that period, poverty was measured to be about 13%. About 13% of people had to spend more than 20% above average on the basic necessities of life, things like food, clothing, shelter, and utilities. That actually increased during the final eight years of the Trudeau government, from 13% to 13.8%.

Of course, that was a period in which middle-class incomes also declined. They declined by about 8%, according to the very first chart in the very first budget Mr. Trudeau's son introduced here in the House of Commons. In that time, poverty grew.

Now, that might seem counterintuitive, because Pierre Elliott Trudeau liked to style himself as a man who pursued a just society, one built upon massive state intervention, big government. Government was aggrandized under the pretext of creating social justice: taking from the rich to give to the poor. This is particularly interesting, because after the period during which Pierre Elliott Trudeau increased the size of the federal government to 24% of the Canadian economy, the middle-class incomes of average Canadians plummeted, again according to data the present Liberal government released in its recent budget, and poverty actually went up. This demonstrates that as government gets bigger, the poor get poorer.

That, of course, runs counter to all the narratives we have been taught for so long. We have been taught that big governments equalize society, that government and the state are like a grand fairness machine, constantly taking from the privileged in order to give to the many.

In fact, as government gets bigger, the poor get poorer. Why does this happen? For one, in a government-run economy, a company is rewarded if it has the best lobbyists. In a free market economy, a company is rewarded if it has the best product. Government-run economies are based on force. Free enterprise economies are based on billions, literally billions, of voluntary transactions. In a free market economy, millions of people, through billions of transactions, decide what businesses produce and at what price. In a government-run economy, the state tells people what they get and what they will pay for it. In other words, it is a relationship of force, and in any relationship of force, the most powerful win.

Who are the most powerful? They are the people who can afford to hire lobbyists to pressure the government, lawyers to get around the rules or to sue those against whom they are competing, and accountants to avoid paying the cost of the massive apparatus we call the state. Those are the powerful interests that always do best when government gets big.

We see this in the province of Ontario, where the government introduced something called the Green Energy Act, which was supposed to create jobs producing windmills and solar panels. What actually happened?

According to the Auditor General of Ontario, over the whole life of this program, a massive government program that forces consumers to pay higher electricity bills in order to purchase wind and solar energy would increase the cost of electricity by an extra $160 billion, above and beyond what it would have cost otherwise. Of course, those costs will fall on the backs of the people who can least afford it, the poor. Electricity and other utilities make up a larger share of the income of poor families than it does of rich families.

Furthermore, wealthy interests are able to pay to have a solar panel put on their house or to invest in a wind turbine park in somebody else's backyard. Wealthy interests are able to aggrandize their own financial situation by benefiting from the government forced pricing system that rips everyone else off. In fact, the former Liberal Party president, Mike Crawley, presided over a company that received a half a billion dollar contract in the process. A lot of wealthy insiders were made instant millionaires overnight and a lot of middle-class people were made instant food bank goers at the same time.

Food banks from places like Windsor have said that people have come in with their hydro bill, saying they have a choice to either eat or turn the lights on, so maybe the food bank can feed them so they can pay the bills. Again, it is a massive wealth transfer from the very poor to the very rich, from the have-nots to the have-yachts.

We see other similar examples. The carbon tax will raise the price of the basic necessities of life, things like heat, hydro, food, and shelter. Those are things on which a lower income family spends a third more of their income than does a wealthy family. In other words, low-income people will pay more as a share of their income than will rich households. The result is that those with the least will suffer the most. Who will benefit?

In Ontario, the government says that it is going to use the money to subsidize all kinds of green programs. Already such programs exist. One paid for five millionaires to buy the wealthiest car ever produced, the Porsche 918 Spyder, under the guise that this was a very green car. Middle-class taxpayers suffering to make ends meet were paying for millionaires to buy Porsches.

The story goes on and on. The Liberals and people on the left like to compare themselves to Robin Hood, taking from the rich to give to the poor. In reality, Robin Hood was not a redistributionist. Robin Hood was not a medieval Marxist. He was a tax fighter, leading probably the most famous tax revolt in the history of our civilization. He fought against heavy taxation by his arch nemesis, who was a tax collector, the Sheriff of Nottingham, and who at the time collected from the peasants and the landowners so he could aggrandize all of the adventures and the luxuries of the aristocratic elite.

In a much less admittedly dramatic form, we see that occur again and again throughout history. The result is that throughout history we have seen that as government gets bigger, the poor get poorer. We see in studies done by the former IMF director, when he compared big government countries, medium-size government countries, and small-size government countries, that countries with the smallest governments actually had the best social outcome; that is those countries where government represented less than 40% of the economy.

The empirical data shows that if we want to give people opportunity, particularly those with the least, we do so by getting government out of the way and unleashing the unmatched force of free enterprise to allow people to pursue their own dreams and benefit from their own work, invest in their own ambitions, and build up their own communities. That is the way to lift up those with the least. That is the way to build a stronger and more vibrant middle class. That is the reason why we were able to reduce poverty to unmatched levels under the previous government. It is the only way that the current government will continue to build on that success.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, whose riding is across the river from my riding of Gatineau.

The member again is getting very good at reciting all of the dogma and the failed experiments in supply-side economics. What he fails to realize is that with respect to outcomes, in terms of the real world, and in terms of what we were left as the situation when we entered office was a failed economic experiment by relying unduly on commodities in our country; crumbling infrastructure; a social deficit in social housing, as my friend from Belleville outlined, or other measures, we were in all sorts of social deficit; and, finally, nine consecutive years of unfettered, unchecked borrowing. The Conservatives never saw a ledger with black ink.

The member now chooses to get up and speak from the Friedman school, but while in power, demonstrated none of that orthodoxy or discipline that he now would have us espouse. Could I get the member to explain a bit of the dissonance that I am experiencing?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot explain the dissonance the member is experiencing, but I can explain our record. We reduced the size of the federal government to its smallest as a share of the economy in the last 50 years. We had the least expensive government as a share of the economy in the last half century, and the results were very positive. As I said, poverty rates fell down to 8.8%, which is the lowest level in recorded history, much lower than when the Liberals were previously in government and vastly lower than during the last Trudeau government, whose policies the present government is trying to replicate.

The member talked about supply-side economics. He and his party subscribe to a theory of trickle-down government. If they take money from working people and they put it on the top of a big bureaucracy, it will trickle down through that bureaucracy, then it will go to another level of government, then maybe to the municipal government and then it will be given to interest groups that will fan out, and a few drops will trickle down to the people at the bottom who pay the bills. We do not accept trickle-down government. It is a theory that has been disproved time and again. It has failed. It leads only to bankruptcy and suffering, as we saw in Greece.

We believe in bottom-up economics. We raised the personal exemption by $1,500, lifting a million people off the tax rolls altogether. We lowered federal income taxes for people earning less than $30,000 a year by 90%. The result was people were able to earn their way out of poverty and build a brighter future for themselves.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know whether my colleague also gets the impression that the Liberals are living on another planet and that they do not understand people's daily reality at all.

They do not seem to understand what it means to live on $23,000 or $25,000 a year while supporting two or three children. The government does not even consider people like that to be part of the middle class. How can it make sense to act this way without even understanding what Canadians' day-to-day lives are like? How can it make sense to abandon these people, particularly those living in rural communities?

Does the member get the impression that the Liberals are living in another world and completely out of touch with people's everyday financial reality?