Debates of Dec. 5th, 2016

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I come from the small business community, so I am glad he asked me that question. If we want small businesses to do well, people need to have money in their pockets so they can spend that money at local businesses and in the secondary economy.

If people are supported by the Canada child benefit and all the other measures we are providing, they will help stimulate the economy, which is good for small businesses.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before I go to resuming debate, I know there has been a couple of questioning looks about how I am picking members. Therefore, I want to remind members that the Deputy Speaker on November 3 indicated that “we recognize that the time for questions and comments is often the most valuable time for an exchange between members”. He went on to say that “time is generally afforded to the members of the parties who are not associated with the member who has just spoke but not to the exclusion of that party.”

Therefore, it is to give an opportunity for people from the opposition or from the government to be able to ask questions to those who are delivering the speech.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a great honour to speak on behalf of the government on this bill in front of us, in particular to focus on the accomplishments that are contained within our budget implementation bill that we are debating and will be voting on soon.

I think my proudest moment remains looking up at the Assembly of First Nations chief as he heard the budget commitments to truth and reconciliation, and renewing and creating a new partnership with our first nations people, Métis, and Inuit. There is work to be done on that. The pressure that the opposition delivers to us to do more and to do it faster is welcomed pressure, and anything we can do to forward this is critical.

I remember in the summertime, as well, another very proud moment. I was stopped in the street by a single mom who almost broke into tears as she said “thank you”. The support through the child tax benefit had delivered her not only substantial resources with which to contend with some of the challenges in her life, but she said it gave her the first opportunity to think that she could actually save for her kid's post-secondary school.

The idea that this tax benefit not only provided immediate relief, but long-term and future relief and a vision for a better tomorrow, I think is reason enough for this budget to be passed immediately. Those benefits have already started to flow to people, and I am proud of that.

Another area is for single seniors. We know that women quite often are left alone without a full pension. We have moved on pension reform, but the move for the guaranteed income supplement to be boosted by 10% is lifting largely older women in this country into a better position financially so that they can take care of themselves. When their partners pass on and they are left alone, quite often their bills stay the same but their incomes change. Therefore, this is a step that we think is tremendously important, as is the CPP reform negotiated with the provinces, as is the EI reform, which is also under way and being delivered, especially to workers in Atlantic Canada and Alberta who are suffering as commodity prices turn in the wrong direction.

At the end of the day, this budget is about one thing and one thing only. It is about jobs. It is about delivering economic opportunity to every corner of this country to get people back into the workforce.

The phrase that we hear the Prime Minister use, “supports the middle class and those aspiring to join it”, is what this budget is all about. Nowhere is this delivered in a more pronounced way than on the issue of infrastructure, which is a program that I have a great deal of pride in. I look at this budget and see extraordinary accomplishments.

I left municipal government and came to Ottawa to get exactly this kind of budget put in place, exactly this kind of support for Canada's municipalities, large and small, northern and southern, rural and urban, the whole mix. The agreements that we have with every province now mean that money is flowing to places like Alberta.

Alberta had next to no infrastructure investment, because there had been no agreement between the province and the federal government for the last two years. Imagine if the two years of spending commitments announced but not delivered to municipalities were under way in Alberta. Imagine the unemployed tradespeople who would be working on infrastructure as the oil patch recovers. It could sustain that economy in a totally different way. However, instead what we had from the previous government were a lot of announcements. In the case of Prince Edward Island, the billboard was more expensive than the actual infrastructure project in Charlottetown. The Conservatives cut a lot of ribbons; they just did not cut any cheques, which was problematic for municipalities right across the country.

The most important investment, from my perspective, is in social infrastructure, which is primarily housing. The $2.3 billion delivered for new housing in this country over the last six to eight months has been transformational in so many communities. It is supporting the most vulnerable Canadians, but, again, it is also putting people back to work, building, repairing, and sustaining our public housing stock.

The biggest investments that have come to major cities are around transit. That is going to change the way that people move in our cities. It is going to allow goods and services to get to market faster, and allow people to get to work, to play, to school, and back home again, that much more effectively. It is going to change the way we generate greenhouse gases, by reducing them, by creating modal shifts as transit becomes more plentiful.

On green infrastructure and flood proofing our cities, a few hundred million dollars in Calgary five or six years ago would have prevented the $600 million in flood remediation. The investments we have to make around storms of the century are fundamental, and we need those agreements put in place and delivered to cities across this country as quickly as possible.

We have also stepped up for rural Canada, recognizing the needs and capacity limitations that smaller towns have in accessing government funds. We have increased the federal contribution. We have made it an easier process to get at money, and we are supporting the rural projects in the small communities that need special attention in order to become healthier and stronger places. As I said to our rural caucus chair in the Liberal Party, my job is to make their small towns bigger towns. This infrastructure money is aimed at doing exactly that.

Broadband access investment is required not just in the last mile but in the core needs of so many communities, to knit them into the modern economy, to ensure economic development opportunities and kids' ability, quite frankly, to connect to learning, to research, and to a wider world. All of these things are critical. This government has stepped up and put the dollars down, $2 billion in rural and $500 million in broadband, with more to come. Wait for next year's budget.

Universities were not in our platform and nobody criticized us for it, but universities are one of the most important economic drivers in many communities across this country. The investment in construction projects, science, and research have bolstered those institutions' capacities. Again, that is part of this budget, one more reason it should be supported.

The infrastructure spending is about building Canada, building strong communities and stronger families, and contributing to the GDP, the employment numbers, and the economic growth we need to succeed as a nation.

Finally, I want to talk about the infrastructure bank. The infrastructure bank is a revolutionary idea for this country in terms of what possibilities exist if it is done properly. I have heard the concerns raised about public-private partnerships or joint ventures, if it makes it more palatable for my friends on the left. I have understood the risks. Of course, there are risks. There is risk in any expenditure government makes. There are risks in 100% publicly financed projects right across this country. We can check local provinces' or cities' auditor general reports to see that even publicly funded projects with no private partners go off the rails sometimes. If we are going to avoid risk, we are going to avoid infrastructure, and that is too big a risk to avoid. We have to find new ways to do it.

All the hue and cry does not really tell the whole story. Only 8% of the $180 billion put down for the next decade is tied to this idea. Ninety-two per cent of the $180 billion is going to flow to traditional infrastructure programs, and not just traditional ones. There is a modification that is also critically important. For small communities, the federal input is 50%, leaving it to the province for 30:20 or 25:25 splits, which means that it is cheaper to access federal money for smaller communities. That is part of our infrastructure program.

On the infrastructure bank, smaller communities can bundle projects together and move together with expertise housed in Ottawa and financed in joint ventures with public and private partnerships. There is nothing bad or irregular about that. It happens all over the country.

We can also look at big Canadian projects that require financing. Instead of using municipal funds to fund big Canadian projects, like the Great Lakes seaway, which needs to be repaired as it was built with the same concrete as the Gardiner Expressway and is falling apart in the same timetable, we need major Canadian investments made and the infrastructure bank is just the vehicle to do that, to protect the traditional infrastructure money for municipalities, smaller communities, and large cities across the country.

We will also in-house the expertise. By in-housing the expertise, such as smaller communities that may have hockey rinks to build, which have a rate-supported funding system built in as everyone pays for ice time in this country, those sorts of projects are ideal for public-private partnerships, ideal for the kind of community development we want to do, great job creators right across this country. What will happen is that smaller communities that have those aspirations will not have to generate their own bureaucracy in order to manage joint ventures. They can lean into the infrastructure bank to both access the capital and structure the deals. This is part of what the infrastructure bank would accomplish on behalf of municipalities and communities right across the country.

I got criticized because I said opposition to this idea is stupid, but it does not mean that the people expressing that opposition are stupid. They just have not heard good ideas expressed about the benefits. Therefore, the criticism was not of the people, it was that the opposition idea, in and of itself, is good or bad. The reason this is such an important idea and the reason criticism is so short-sighted is that when I talked about flood protection, it is absolutely vital if we are going to preserve major metropolises and small towns. We cannot wait until the money accrues or wait to borrow, or wait to do that. We have to do it quickly. To not do it is irresponsible, to not do it is stupid.

Utilizing this methodology in order to put flood protection in place is smart. If we want to do it faster, and sometimes we have to do it faster to protect cities, sometimes the borrowing costs are different, but we can figure that out with an infrastructure bank in the way that smaller cities might not be able to on their own.

I will leave everyone with one last good idea. There is a guy called Mike Layton. Members might recognize the last name. There is another guy called Joe Cressy, someone I ran against. Both are New Democrats in Toronto and support public-private partnerships and toll roads in order to build infrastructure in Toronto. It is called the Don Valley Expressway and the Gardiner Expressway. The NDP is pushing this idea and I hope the party can follow the lead of some guy called Layton because—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think the parliamentary secretary may have failed to grasp the criticism, since he mentioned PPPs only in a general sense, when we are talking specifically about the plan the government presented with regard to the infrastructure bank.

Let us look at a firm like Crédit Suisse, for example, which has built its reputation on privatizing airports. That is the kind of thing that worries us. It is also a foreign investment. All of these issues put taxpayers in a very precarious position.

We understand that some private investment is necessary to get certain projects done. The problem here is that the government's proposal is going to create a situation in which people who work for Chinese firms, for example, will be the ones to be invited to Liberal Party fundraising galas, and those firms will purchase that infrastructure. I want my colleague to understand this nuance and to answer my question.

If I take the Champlain Bridge in my home province, for instance, are the Liberals going to bring in a toll if it is sold to a private firm?

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, direct questions have been asked of the ministers responsible. There was no confirmation to the member's question a few days ago that we are selling off anything. Ideas have been circulated. We are thinking about things, but we are not thinking about doing them. We are just trying to understand what the propositions are as they come in from different sources. As for the source of foreign capital, I am not sure why the Chinese keep getting singled out in this conversation, but I find it a little disturbing.

I will tell the House about an idea that would benefit from this sort of project. Near the Toronto Island ferry docks on Bay Street, a street my friends opposite like to reference quite a bit, a ferry terminal that serves millions of Torontonians is currently being rebuilt. The funding for that is coming from a public-private partnership. It involves selling a parking lot to a pension fund from Quebec, building a new park, building new office towers, and building a new bus and GO terminal in the heart of downtown Toronto. Profits from that are being invested in the new ferry terminal. It is a joint venture, a public-private partnership. The name of that terminal is the Jack Layton ferry terminal. If members want to cancel P3s, then that ferry terminal should be cancelled first and that nomination put to rest.

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

Madam Speaker, the reality of the situation is far more dire than the member opposite has portrayed.

He talked about job creation. As we heard from Statistics Canada the other day, the reality is that we have lost 31,000 jobs over the last year in spite of Liberal promises, with hands over hearts, that they were going to create jobs. The reality is that more part-time precarious employment has been created as a result of government policy.

What scares us the most is the fact that when the Liberals spoke about debt and deficits, these were going to be teeny-weeny deficits. The member for Louis-Saint-Laurent has been quite vocal about this. He has asked the finance minister at least 12 times in the House when we are going to get out of deficit. There has been no answer.

In the member's idyllic view of the way things Liberal are going to be, when are we going to get out of our deficit?

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, listening to Conservatives' lecture anyone about debt is a bit like listening to those southern ministers talk about sins of the skin and then getting found in a brothel the next day.

When do we pay off the Conservatives' $150 billion of debt? We have to pay that $150 billion from the Harper government first before we even start talking about whatever debt we may incur. If we add to that the debt that Mulroney dumped on us, it is magnificent. The only government that has left a surplus of any note in the last decade, let alone the last 25 years, is a Liberal government.

I can assure the member that is the direction this government is heading in. We are going to get there by investing in building a strong country. The Conservatives talk about balancing the books, but they did not do it. As soon as they get finished paying off their $150 billion in debt, I will give the member an answer on how we are going to play with our money.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would just say to the member for Barrie—Innisfil that he had the attention of the House when he was asking his question, and I would anticipate that he would be as respectful to the parliamentary secretary while he is answering. I expect that from everyone in the House.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Louis-Hébert.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think I will continue along the same lines as the hon. parliamentary secretary, since we have been criticized repeatedly in the House by the Conservative Party, which formed the previous government—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I just want to remind the parliamentary secretary and the other members on the other side that it is the member for Louis-Hébert who has the floor.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are often criticized by the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent and other members of the Conservative Party for running deficits. We know that interest rates are at historic lows, that the IMF and the World Bank recommend that we invest and run deficits precisely when interest rates are low and when there are pressing needs in infrastructure, as we see from coast to coast to coast in Canada.

It is a bit surreal to hear the Conservatives criticize us for running deficits when, for eight consecutive years, they did not table a single budget that was in the black. The budget was in the red every year and they keep telling us without fail that they had to invest in that way because of the financial crisis in 2008.

First they invested because they were told to, it was an important thing to do to stimulate the economy. It was the right thing to do at the time. One of the main reasons we fared so well in 2008 after the financial crisis in Canada was precisely because the previous Liberal government, that of Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien, refused to regulate our financial industry, which is what the Conservatives wanted and Mr. Harper got all worked up about in the House.

If we had listened to the Conservatives at the time, we would have ended up much worse off than we did in Canada. We did not listen to them then, fortunately, and we are not listening to them now. Thank God, we are very careful about taking their economic advice. With the $150 billion in deficit they left us, we ended up with the worst job growth in 69 years and the worst economic growth since the Second World War. When it comes to taking lessons from my hon. colleagues across the way on managing public finances and the Canadian economy, thanks, but no thanks.

One of the most important things about the budget and budget implementation Bill C-29 is that they reduce inequality. When our Conservative colleagues talk about the deficit, they say that we need to think about future generations. Were they thinking about future generations when they increased the TFSA limit from $5,500 to $10,000? No. When asked that question, even the finance minister at the time, Joe Oliver, said the following:

“leave that to Prime Minister Stephen Harper's granddaughter to solve”. That is not our attitude. That is not our philosophy. We are dealing with the issues we are facing today, and doing so in a manner that is conscious of future generations.

When they raised the TFSA limit to $10,000, it is worth noting that the inventor of the TFSA, Mr. Kesselman, was against raising the limit so high. Even the Americans do not go that far. It would be the equivalent of putting this country in a fiscal straitjacket for generations to come, because of all the revenues it would be deprived of.

One of the good things about this budget is that it cancels that increase in the TFSA limit, which, according to the parliamentary budget officer, would benefit only the wealthiest 10%. We think that most Canadians need to benefit from wealth in this country. We think that a country where inequalities are consistently being reduced is a good thing. That is exactly why we changed those policies, including the increase in the TFSA limit. They were unfair and unjustifiable from both a moral and a tax perspective.

The increase in the TFSA limit was not the only problem. There were many other tax policies put forward by the previous government that also benefited only the wealthiest 10%. Take for example income splitting. In my riding, as in most others, this would have only benefited the wealthiest 5% or 10%, not all Canadians.

Rather than forging ahead with policies that increase inequality, which is what the former government was bent on doing, we introduced the Canada child benefit. To give an example, when I was a child, I was raised by my mother in a small Quebec City apartment with my brother. She was a single mother. We did the math this summer. That would have given us an extra $1,066 per month tax free. I can say that that would have made a big difference in our lives back then, just like this is making a big difference in the lives of thousands of Canadian families today. When I am not feeling as motivated to come here to do my job, I think about the Canada child benefit and I can say that I am very proud to defend this budget, on this side of the House, because it is lifting 300,000 children out of poverty.

I would have encouraged my colleagues, whom I salute by the way, to vote in favour of such a socially progressive and revolutionary policy for Canada, but no, they voted against it, just like they voted against the middle class tax cut that benefits 9 million Canadians across the country.

They also voted against increasing the guaranteed income supplement, which helps 900,000 seniors across the country by giving them almost $1,000 more per year. That is not peanuts. When I went door to door in my riding, especially in low-income housing areas, seniors told me that their income was not keeping pace with the rising cost of living. That is exactly what we are trying to address via the guaranteed income supplement, which had not seen a significant increase in years, certainly not under the previous government. That government was more interested in the well-off, the richest 10%. That is what it did for 10 years with policies such as increasing the TFSA limit and income splitting. I am very proud that we have overturned those changes.

With respect to infrastructure investment, the IMF and the World Bank concluded that austerity in times of slow growth is not good policy, so they asked all countries to invest in infrastructure to stimulate growth and innovation. That is exactly what our government is doing by investing $180 billion over the next 12 years. We believe that our unprecedented investment will address Canada's growing infrastructure deficit and stimulate the economy.

Whether it is in public transit or social housing, we have some catching up to do in terms of investing in infrastructure. There is no better time to do it than when interest rates are low and the economy has slowed down. It is in fact one of the tools that Prime Minister Paul Martin used when he was minister of Finance. Back then he decided to invest in infrastructure by creating deficits. When we see growth, it is much easier to balance the budget and return to surplus.

This is what the government is banking on. The idea is to stimulate growth so we can eventually reduce the size of the debt and balance the books. That is what we are hoping for and so is everyone else. It is a target we can reach when there is growth, and for that we need to invest in innovation, science and infrastructure. This is what our government is doing.

When I think of the investments we are making in science and innovation, I think about how, over the past 10 years, as the innovation train was picking up steam, Canada was stuck at the station eating dust. Université Laval is in my riding, and I meet with researchers and scientists practically every week who tell me that we are finally emerging from the little Conservative darkness. Some people would call it a great darkness. I certainly would, and so would a lot of scientists.

Who could forget that Prime Minister Harper appointed a prominent creationist? That was just the tip of the iceberg. His government then adopted policies to disengage our investment in science and innovation just as European countries and the United States were making massive investments. Canada stood by and did not invest in science.

With budget 2016, our government is trying to make up for lost time in science and innovation investment.

That concludes my speech. I am eager to take questions from my hon. colleagues across the aisle, and I know they are also very eager to ask them.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. I was only able to hear the end, so I hope my question is relevant.

I have spoken with my colleague many times, and he is very professional. He is a lawyer with a large Montreal firm. However, I never thought he would be so partisan as to portray the Conservative era in such a negative light, when we gave the most substantial tax breaks in 50 years thank to 63 successive measures. We also created 1.2 million jobs after the recession.

As a lawyer, my colleague from Louis-Hébert should stick to the facts. Does he not find it odd that he and his government are talking about a tax cut for the middle class, when in reality, it applies only to people who earn over $140,000 a year? A Conservative senator, Larry Smith, did some excellent research that proves it. In other words, this tax cut does not at all apply to those who need it most.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is quite something to have a Conservative member criticize me for being partisan. After campaigning in the same region during the election campaign, I can assure hon. members that I definitely have no lessons to learn about partisanship from the members across the way.

That being said, I can say that this tax cut will affect nine million Canadians. I thank the hon. member for giving me the opportunity to reiterate that. This tax cut will affect the $45,000 to $90,000 tax bracket. However, let us look at the budget as a whole. The Canada child benefit will lift 300,000 children out of poverty.

When my colleague rises to speak, I have the following questions for him. How many people benefited from the increased TFSA limit? How many people benefited from income splitting? I can count them on one hand. How many people can my colleague name?

The parliamentary budget officer did the math and answered that question. It was always the wealthiest 10% of Canadians, or those for whom the Conservatives were working. On this side of the House, we are working for all Canadians.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I would like to ask him a question about an issue concerning his riding. In the last Parliament, we asked questions about the Quebec Bridge and the Conservatives showed no interest. Now all of a sudden, they are interested. I imagine it is because they got some seats back. We know how this wishful thinking works when in government. When you have a riding, you help; when you do not, you ignore it. At least that was how things were during the past four years.

The issue is still unresolved, even though it attracted some attention in the Quebec City area during the last election campaign, as I understand it. With respect to the infrastructure bank, is the member at all concerned that privatization will be one of the proposed solutions along with the negative effects that this would have on the Quebec City area and its residents?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for Beloeil—Chambly. This gives me the opportunity to highlight the positions of the various parties during the last election campaign.

We know that for 10 years the Conservatives hid behind the courts regarding the Quebec Bridge. When Stephen Harper came to Quebec City, he jokingly asked if the Quebec Bridge was still standing. I can say that it is very important for us to find a solution for the Quebec Bridge.

Meanwhile, the NDP had another position, which was to impose special legislation in an attempt to force CN to paint the bridge. However, for years CN has been winning in the courts, saying that it has no aesthetic obligation. This would mean once again going back to court.

On this side of the House, we are prepared to put $75 million on the table. We are in discussions with various stakeholders in the Quebec City area, including CN, the provincial government, the municipal government, the chamber of commerce, and Laval University. We did not see as much progress on this file over the past 10 years as we are seeing right now under a Liberal government, with only two Liberal MPs in the Quebec City area working as a team. We have five or seven Conservatives who are issuing fine press releases, holding press conferences, and getting all worked up about anything and everything every week, yet they never do anything constructive.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It being 6:45 p.m. pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division is deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.