Debates of Dec. 5th, 2016

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Essex, Steel Industry; the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, Health.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House. “Pleased” might be a bit of an exaggeration, but I always like talking about bills in the House.

When it comes to Bill C-29, it is sad to see that Canadians have been taken for a ride, and I am not talking about a ride in Santa's sleigh. The Liberal government omitted some things. Opposition members here in Ottawa are not the only ones questioning Bill C-29. Members of the Quebec National Assembly are too. The Quebec National Assembly even passed a unanimous motion, which is saying a lot because it means that friends of both the Liberals and Conservatives supported it. I know a member of the National Assembly in Quebec City who is probably not very impressed at having to work against his natural friends.

The motion of the National Assembly reads as follows:

That the National Assembly reiterate the importance of preserving the strong consumer protection regime enacted in the Quebec Consumer Protection Act;

That the National Assembly call on the federal government to remove the provisions of Bill C-29, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, that would render inapplicable the provisions of the Quebec Consumer Protection Act that govern the relationship between banks and their clients.

This comes from the Quebec National Assembly. So it is not just the opposition here in Ottawa that has questions about Bill C-29.

At the launch of the campaign in 2015, the Liberals promised us just a small deficit of $10 billion. This has now become an enormous deficit of $34 billion. It is surely going to skyrocket yet again, because the Liberals forgot to tell Canadians and Quebeckers that, when they were given power, they were also given the power to spend like drunken sailors.

They are not consulting us. They spend, and then they say they have made a mistake that is going to prove expensive. They should have thought of that before, or consulted Canadians to see whether it was the right thing to do.

It is a shame, because today’s Liberals have not changed much from the Liberals of 10 or 11 years ago. One need only think of the preferential access to ministers at a cost of $1,500. I am not sure the people in my riding are prepared to pay $1,500 just so that a business can get the help it so badly needs.

The Liberals had promised to reduce the small business tax rate. That is another broken promise. The Liberals are still telling us many wonderful things, but it is what the Liberals do not say that is dangerous. That is what they fail to tell Canadians every day. Not everyone reads the fine print.

We are here in the House and we watch them in action, but Canadians watch the news and learn that there are fewer and fewer full-time jobs available for our young people. However, the Liberals promised a year ago to create a whole raft of new jobs. We have a job, but our young people need full-time jobs. Not all young university graduates want to go to work at McDonald's, even though it may be just fine to do so.

They took courses and got their degree, and they want to work in their field. However, thanks to the taxes and surtaxes imposed by the Liberals, they have no employment. There has been a decline in full-time youth employment.

People everywhere are asking questions. The president of Option consommateurs has wondered whether Bill C-29 is not perhaps a way for the federal government to open the door for the banks to circumvent Quebec law. There are Quebeckers sitting opposite us, on the other side of the House. The 40 elected Quebeckers—they can hear the people of Quebec. Can they rise in the House to defend Quebeckers?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

I am pleased to see you want to stand up for them. However, they have to stop telling Quebeckers fairy tales. The other day I was talking about unicorns, and today I am talking about fairies. What I am trying to say is that at some point you have to stop dreaming and start being honest with people. It’s fine to consult with them, but you also have to listen to them. A consultation is not a monologue. On the contrary, it is a dialogue with the people.

The Liberals are holding consultations all over the place, but they are not listening to anyone. They are not listening to anyone because they are the best. The Liberals are the good guys, until it all blows up in their face. Before getting to that point they should think about the ordinary Quebeckers and Canadians who are having trouble making ends meet. Thanks to the Liberals, those people find themselves cut adrift.

Let us just consider the infrastructure bank. Who will benefit from it? The Liberals’ friends and those who can invest $100 million. You do not see too many $100-million projects in a little community like Saint-Urbain or Saint-Irénée. However, it is the small communities that need help. We can help the big cities like Montréal, Vancouver, Ottawa, or Québec, but we also have to help the regions.

The Liberals have forgotten one thing. Unfortunately, I must be honest and say that every political party for the last 25 or 30 years has forgotten it as well. It is the country that feeds the city, not the other way around.

Today, our small communities are being choked in the interests of the big communities, of friends who have money and millionaires. I am truly proud to be a member of a political party that cares for the regions and the smaller municipalities, a party that works for ordinary Quebeckers and for those who don’t have millions of dollars in the bank. I am a member of a party that also takes care of those who do community work, but who come from the same place as the people sitting here today. I salute them.

I remember a time when I myself was poor and in need of money. I have to vote against this bill being proposed today, because it will not help poor people, just the opposite. There is a lot of talk about the middle class, but they are in the process of bleeding it white.

The Liberal Party will make the middle class of today into the poor of tomorrow. I think that is unacceptable. One need only visit the food banks and volunteer at Christmas dinners for the less fortunate to realize that the face of poverty has changed over the last 20 years. Poor people are no longer just those who live on the street; they are also people who work and struggle to pay for electricity, rent, or anything else. They are taxed and squeezed dry again and again.

I must therefore vote against Bill C-29, because it offers no solution to the problem of poverty and the problems of the rural world, from which I come.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before we go on, I would like to remind members that they must not address anyone directly using the second person pronoun. I am sure that the hon. member was not talking about me as the Speaker. In the House, members must use the third person.

The hon. Minister of Transport.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech even though it made me scratch my head a few times.

Since she raised the subject of poverty, has she asked poor people in her riding who are now receiving the Canada child benefit, an extremely generous, tax-free benefit that will lift 300,000 children out of poverty, whether that benefit has made things better for them? Has she told seniors who receive the guaranteed income supplement that they will receive nearly $1,000 more thanks to our government?

She is welcome to speak passionately about poverty and people, but she needs to acknowledge that this government has done some good things.

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

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

Of course my constituents have talked to me about those things. I even know some people who put the money aside because they do not know when they will have to pay it back. That is a fact.

Since my colleague mentioned seniors, I will talk about my mother, who will not benefit from this measure at all because it will cost her more since she has Alzheimer's. The Liberals did not consider that. I know what things are like for seniors and lots of people.

The Liberals, like the Conservatives, have certainly done some good things. However, you have to admit that, by breaking promises, you have hurt Canadians. It would be nice if you could admit that because, for middle-class people, there is a big difference between $10 billion and $34 billion.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Again, I would remind the hon. member that I did not do those things. I imagine she was addressing the government members.

The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I will not say the name of her riding, because it is one of the few whose name is longer than that of my riding.

My colleague talked about the changes being made by Bill C-29 to the Bank Act. At the Standing Committee on Finance, of which I am a member, a representative from the Public Interest Advocacy Centre said that adopting an out-of-court settlement provision or a provision to prevent class action lawsuits is prohibited under the Consumer Protection Act.

It is ironic because the government wants to make changes in response to the ruling in Marcotte, which stemmed from a class action lawsuit having to do with foreign currency conversion fees.

Contrary to what the government is saying, power is being shifted from the consumer to the banks, which, unfortunately, have no regard for Quebec's jurisdiction over consumer protection.

What does my colleague think of that?

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

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

Quite frankly, it is appalling that the consumer is the loser here. Canadian consumers should have been the ones to benefit from Bill C-29.

As for the Consumer Protection Act, that is a Quebec law, and we do not want to lose it. The government and the members across the aisle who are from Quebec are very aware of how things work in Quebec. This bill undermines Quebec jurisprudence, and that is wrong.

What I think is even worse is that consumers are the ones who lose here, because if they are ever dissatisfied, they have no recourse under Bill C-29.

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

Mr. Speaker, I once again have the great pleasure of rising to talk about how successful the Liberal 2016 budget has been, along with Bill C-29 to implement it. It is a budget that plans for the future, invests where investments are needed, helps our seniors, returns science and innovation to its rightful place, lays the groundwork for our youth, and addresses the priorities of our regions.

At 19,694 square kilometres, my riding, Laurentides—Labelle, is the 46th largest riding in Canada. Our smallest municipality has 41 permanent residents; our largest has about 13,000. My home town of Sainte-Lucie-des-Laurentides, where I still live, is the median of our 43 municipalities with 1,024 residents.

Our communities are aging. In 2011, the average age was 49.5. This year's census data will be released shortly, and I can only imagine that the average age will be over 50, so this budget and the initiatives that will affect our region are important.

In this bill, we are making it easy for senior couples no longer able to live together to receive greater old age security benefits. We are helping seniors in the short term, and we are planning for future issues involving seniors through the changes we have already rolled out for a significant 10% increase to the guaranteed income supplement for single seniors; through lowering the eligibility age for old age security from 67 to 65; and also through Bill C-26 on the future of the CPP.

We have been here for only a year and we did all that. The three budgets remaining in this mandate can only be even better.

Speaking of the future, I want to take this opportunity to talk about our innovation agenda. Our budget puts billions of dollars into social, transport, and green infrastructure. Our investments in scientific research are finally back on, after years of having a creationist minister of science. We understand the importance of research, of science, and of being truly progressive. Progressive comes from progress. Progress is a forward or onward movement. Moving forward is what we do.

While the official opposition objects to even the most basic progress, when even the notion of switching to digital clocks in this chamber was pooh-poohed by the Conservatives when we had a debate on Standing Order 51, the rest of society moves ever forward.

Mr. Speaker, 2016 marks the 25th anniversary of Linux, the open source operating system started by Linus Torvalds and developed into a world powerhouse by tens if not hundreds of thousands of contributors from all walks of life and all corners of the globe.

I have been involved in the Linux and open source community for most of that time, mainly through the open and free technology community SourceForge and its predecessor organizations, Software in the Public Interest and the Debian community. It symbolizes to me what a community can do when it works together. Indeed, DebConf17 will take place next year in Montreal, and it is an excellent and concrete example of what that looks like.

We in rural Canada are still trying to figure out how to reduce packet loss on our TCP-over-smoke signal Internet connectivity and our UDP-over-carrier pigeon cell phone service. The rest of the world is not waiting.

Amazon, Google, and Facebook built their empires on Linux. Linux now runs 498 of the world's 500 fastest supercomputers, only one of which is in Canada. Even Microsoft recently finally joined the Linux Foundation this fall.

I believe it is very important to understand the lessons of the open source community.

In 25 years, Linux went from a university student's hobby to the software backbone of the Internet. Many people became very wealthy because of it, with it, and through it, yet all the while, the software, the product, was free for anyone and everyone to use, to modify, to take apart, and to understand.

While some people refuse to use a web browser other than Internet Explorer because its proprietary nature is seen as the only possible avenue to being secure, I see it as the other way around. Open source software, with its peer-reviewed scientific approach to development, tends to be the most secure option available. Getting open source logic into government can only see innovation improve.

With our innovation agenda, the options are there, but to get there, we need communications infrastructure. That we only have one of the world's top 500 supercomputers, and that it is 196 on the list, speaks to the need for infrastructure and investment in innovation. After a decade of the previous government dismissing science as an inconvenience, unhelpful facts in the way of an ideological agenda, the government we have today clearly believes in researching and preparing our way into the future.

In rural Canada, as I mentioned, Internet is our big file. Of the 43 municipalities I mentioned earlier, all 43 see the lack of proper, competitive, high speed Internet as among the top priorities. Without it, our average age will continue heading north. When our average age reaches retirement age, the social structure of our region will necessarily change.

To address this, we need to address the issues that are keeping youth away.

When I asked high school seniors who among them will stay in the region after they graduate, it was rare to hear one of them say yes.

When I ask them why they leave, the answers are always the same. They say that there is no post-secondary education, that there is not a lot of public transit, that the regional service covers 35 municipalities with a couple of retired school buses, and that there is substandard internet and cellular service. Without these, not much is going on. When newcomers see that their cellphones do not work, they do not think about buying a house in our region, moving there or making their lives there.

Internet access is only through slow and unreliable satellite service or by telephone. Surely members can remember that noise old modems used to make. Unfortunately, it is still the case for many of our residents. For the luckiest, it is a blurry image at the end of a Skype call with their grandchildren.

Our budget is beginning to tackle these problems. We are investing $500 million in digital infrastructure to help bridge this technical gap. The lack of internet means fewer young people, less immigration and fewer opportunities for those who stay.

In investing a half a billion dollars in digital infrastructure to begin with, we are creating opportunities for those who stay and some appeal for newcomers. We are also helping to keep young people in the region.

The bill also aims to improve the lives of our seniors and to even out the average age of our regions over the long term. It is a budget that plans for the future, that invests where investment is needed, that helps our seniors, that reinstates science and innovation to their rightful place, that paves the way for our young people, and that examines the priorities of our regions. I am proud to support it.

What I am most proud of in this budget is the Canada child benefit. It helps thousands of people in the country. Over 300,000 people will find more money in their pockets.

When I tour my riding, people will often stop me and say they have never been interested in politics, but they really appreciate what we have done for families.

Last Friday evening, someone told me that she became a single parent just before the change in policy, and that it has helped her directly. It also provides concrete assistance to the region’s youth and families. I am proud of everything we have done. We have be proud of this budget. I am proud to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was intrigued by the opening comments by my colleague, who listed a number of so-called achievements. Then he said that all of this was done in only one year.

I would like to list a few other things from only one year. The Liberals promised a $10-billion deficit. Now it is over $30 billion, all in one year, resulting in interest-cost increases of $10 billion per year. Big spending; no results. There are fewer full-time jobs than a year ago. The cost of living has increased. It is harder for Canadians to qualify for or afford a mortgage. The Liberals also forgot to index the Canada child benefit. Now to index it, we find that it would cost $42 billion over five years. That is all in one year.

My really big disappointment is to see the Prime Minister not allowing us to have full debate on this bill in the House. This budget implementation bill is important for the future of Canada. It should have a more complete and full debate.

I wonder if my colleague would comment on why he thinks the Prime Minister is not allowing full debate on Bill C-29.

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

Mr. Speaker, with nine days of debate, we are not facing a major debate deficit.

If the Conservatives want to go after us on deficits, they have quite a record. The Conservatives have passed maybe four budgets since 1900 that actually had a surplus. I am not going to take any great lectures from the Conservatives.

There is a huge deficit in our infrastructure. There is so much work that needs to be done. The member wants to put the deficit in our infrastructure and in our communities instead of in our line items.

It is important that we do this correctly. We need to invest in our country, in our communities, to build for the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle comes from Quebec.

With Bill C-29, we are facing a situation where the government wants, unilaterally of course, to appropriate consumer protection powers, where banks and financial institutions are concerned.

The problem is that what we see in Bill C-29 is much weaker than what is now in Quebec’s Consumer Protection Act. Not only that, but it is a recognized fact that consumer protection falls under provincial jurisdiction.

I acknowledge that the Bank Act is a federal law, but we are talking about consumer protection here. What is more, if there are amendments made by Bill C-29 in connection with this issue, that is because of the Marcotte ruling, which dealt with currency conversion fees. That matter went before the Supreme Court, notably after a class action suit.

Incidentally, this Bill C-29 would no longer permit class action lawsuits against banks. I think there is a sort of contradiction here. Quebec organizations generally recognize that Bill C-29 is going to reduce the level of consumer protection.

As an MP from Quebec, why does he not rise in the House to protest this situation and to defend his riding's consumers, especially bank users?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have heard that question several times today.

The Marcotte decision asked us to clarify things, and that is exactly what we are doing with this bill. It is important to heed court rulings, and I do not see how this can be a bad thing.

[Michel Boudrias, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle about what was said in the House today. Quebec's National Assembly passed a unanimous motion.

I do not know if he is aware of this, but Quebec's Consumer Protection Act is 45 years old and was passed by Robert Bourassa's Liberals. According to the Canadian Constitution, the Consumer Protection Act falls under Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction because of its powers under the Quebec civil code.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks of that as the member for Laurentides—Labelle. Is he comfortable with the federal government's bulldozer-style intrusion into a matter under Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle has 30 seconds to respond.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not need 30 seconds. The question was already asked, and I answered it.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it truly is an honour to stand today on behalf of the hard-working residents of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford to debate Bill C-29 at report stage. It is very unfortunate that I am doing so under the yoke of time allocation. I feel that today's motion to limit the ability of members of Parliament to give viewpoints on behalf of their constituents was truly a reprehensible motion. The government brought down a guillotine to cut off our ability to speak on behalf of our constituents. When it comes to budget implementation acts, they are vast pieces of legislation. They cover so many different areas. If any bill deserves close scrutiny, it is this type of legislation.

We have had some odd occurrences in this debate. On Friday, one of the first motions moved by the government was a motion to delete the short title. It was moved by the member for Winnipeg North. I am not sure why the committee had not decided to do that, but the government found the wisdom to do it. There have been some strange occurences with this bill.

I find that when members of Parliament move to that side of the chamber, they tend to suffer from short-term memory loss. The Liberals used to be the most vocal opponents; they used to scream with moral outrage every time time allocation was invoked. I think it is helpful to go back to some actual quotes to help to remind them.

On February 8, 2012, the member for Winnipeg North said:

The only way in which the government has been able to deal with the legislative agenda as opposed to working with the opposition is to ram it through the House of Commons in an undemocratic fashion.

Why has the government been a total and absolute failure in not recognizing the importance of working in negotiation with the opposition and ensuring that Canada is served better through the normal process of...debate?

I would love to ask that question of him today. I wonder what answer he would give, the 2012 version versus the 2016 version.

Report stage is a particularly important time in the legislative process. It gives members of Parliament who were not able to participate at the committee stage the chance to move important amendments. The fact that we have only had Friday, and now cutting it off today, I think shows an extreme disrespect.

That being said, I want to move on to talk about some of the substantive measures of the bill and my views on it.

The Liberals ran strongly on extolling the virtues of their middle-class tax cut. What I have to keep reminding my constituents, and indeed all Canadians is that this is not a middle-class tax cut. They will not see the full benefits unless they are earning a six-figure income. That is certainly not members of the middle class in my riding, and indeed in Canada. When the median income is $31,000 a year, those people are not receiving any benefit. Even if they had a decent income in the $60,000 to $70,000 range, their benefits would certainly not be as much as someone earning $150,000, or even up to $199,000. It is important to bring that up. The Liberals like to sell this as a middle-class tax cut, when in fact it is anything but.

I also want to speak up on behalf of the hard-working small business owners in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. They really are fantastic people. Over the last seven years, I have had a lot of opportunities to work with small businesses when they have had problems with their taxes. I was given the very privileged position, in my former life as a constituency assistant, to see the details of small business tax returns. I know how difficult it is for them to survive in today's environment. Often, small business owners are paying themselves very meagre salaries and cutting corners for themselves personally to ensure their employees have jobs and that the business continues to be a source of employment for the local community. That is a pattern that we see across Canada. Therefore, it was quite disappointing to see that the Liberals did not move ahead with their promised small business tax cut.

Also, I think there was a real opportunity in the budget implementation act to take some meaningful action on credit card fees. Credit card fees can be an enormous expense for businesses. If they do not have the machines that take credit cards, they are not going to get customers, but there are huge fees for using that service. There was a missed opportunity to take some meaningful action on that measure, and it would have done some great work for businesses across the country.

The next thing I want to talk about is the child benefit, which is another program extolled by the Liberals. I would agree that it is a good thing any time we can provide families with money, because I know very well that families struggle a lot.

We do not want to overextend ourselves in praising this benefit, considering the situation that many families are going through with the lack of affordable child care spaces and the maximum child benefit being around $6,400. That is only going to meet parents halfway when they are looking for child care spaces with how expensive it is.

Furthermore, if there are no good full-time jobs out there with a standard living wage, then a lot of parents will not be able to afford a second job because the cost of child care completely outweighs their income. There is no chance for upward mobility, and that is the main thing. It has been proven time and again that if decent affordable child care is provided, then families will be able to make their way up. Furthermore, a strong, safe minimum wage is an added benefit.

I am disappointed that families will have to wait until 2020 until the child benefit gets indexed to inflation. That leaves a big question for me: Why is the Liberal government not taking action and implementing indexation next year? I have not yet received an adequate answer to that simple question, and I will remind my constituents of that point time and again.

The next part that I want to talk about goes to the infrastructure bank proposal. We first heard about this in budget 2016, earlier in the spring, when the government started talking about asset recycling. I am always wary when new terms, new technical jargon, come up. It usually means trying to change the meaning of something so people get confused about what is really going on.

Andrew Coyne had this to say in one of his columns earlier this year. He stated that asset recycling “can finance capital projects like roads and bridges by charging the people who use them. Once these would have been known as user fees or road tolls; in the language of today’s technocrats, it’s called “asset monetization” or “asset recycling.”

When private investors make these substantial investments in infrastructure projects, they are going to want a good rate of return. When Michael Sabia appeared before the Toronto Region Board of Trade on March 3, 2016, he said he was looking for stable, predictable returns in the 7% to 9% range. Canadians were not acquainted with that during the Liberal campaign promise. For 7% to 9% rates of return, we would have to look at charging tolls and user fees to ordinary Canadians and residents. That goes way above and beyond the kind of interest rates that Canadians were hoping for when the federal government can use its borrowing power at extremely low interest rates to finance these kinds of capital projects. That is a far cry from the 7% to 9% that private investors are going to be looking for.

Those are some of the major concerns overall. There were some incredible missed opportunities in this legislation. We in the New Democratic Party have been raising this consistently. There were some real opportunities that could have been made use of to help lower-income members of our society move forward, such as showing leadership on a federal minimum wage, providing child care spaces, and making sure the federal government uses its borrowing power to make those much-needed investments in infrastructure, rather than relying on the private sector and the tolls and user fees they are going to extract. We also hope the child benefit will be indexed to inflation starting next year.

I will leave it at that because I have made my points. I appreciate this opportunity to speak on behalf of the amazing constituents of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague about a question that was asked previously by his colleague related to the consumer protection aspects of Bill C-29. Would the member not agree that a national framework for consumer protection, with rules and regulations relating to the banking industry, would be a step forward for his constituents in British Columbia?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, in the course of debate on Bill C-29, and even in its predecessor, the previous budget implementation act, there are measures in this budget that we can support. Whenever we are looking out for consumers and making sure they are being protected against nefarious business practices, we can absolutely get behind measures like that.

It is for the reasons I outlined earlier, because it is such a wide-ranging bill and there are so many areas that we believe could have been improved, and because this bill has to be passed in its present form with all of the measures, that those are the reasons we will have to be voting against it.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member neglected to talk about two things that we talk about on this side of the House. There is the carbon tax, which we will see in about 26 days in Alberta and the impact that will have. However, I am also curious to hear the member's thoughts on the pipeline approval that was just announced. I know that in his area in B.C., people probably have some opinions on that. I am curious to know what he would think. I know that back home in my province, the provincial premier seems to be saying that she did a lot of it. I am curious to know what the hon. member thinks.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, when we talk about a carbon tax, or indeed any kind of a price on pollution, if we look at the realities of today and going on in the 21st century, almost everyone I know of agrees that a price on carbon has to be instituted if we are going to change our behaviour.

With respect to pipelines in British Columbia, I will absolutely echo my constituents' extreme disappointment. It is not only because the pipeline is being built; it is because the Liberal government completely betrayed British Columbians when it made a promise to institute a new environmental review process. We have always sought value-added products. In shipping raw undiluted bitumen, we are not getting any value out of that product. I would like to see some refining capacity expanded in Alberta so that we can sell a value-added product and use that to fund our transition to a renewable energy future. That is where the future is. I owe that to my children, and I think we all owe that to the next generation.

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

Madam Speaker, the New Democrats talk a lot about the middle class, but they do not necessarily do it in a positive way. We look at the middle class, and the vast majority of the middle class who are working hard and deserve the tax break. The NDP is voting against the tax break, ultimately saying it would not help the poor. Yet we are helping the poorest of our seniors and the poorest families in terms of children, through wonderful enhancements like the Canada child benefit and the GIS.

I wonder why the New Democrats do not recognize the other benefits. They just focus on the middle class tax cuts. People such as health care workers and factory-floor workers are the bulk of those who would get the advantage of the tax break. They are voting against that, but they are also excluding the benefits for families with young children and for our seniors who are the most vulnerable. Why is that?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I did actually point out that the child benefit is going to have some benefits. As the NDP's critic for seniors issues, I did welcome an increase in the GIS. However, I also want to point out for the member for Winnipeg North that I was very pointed in my criticisms of the Liberal tax cut, because it would benefit people the most who have six-figure incomes. The people earning the median income in Canada of $31,000 a year are not going to see any benefits.

I will reiterate that what Canadian families need, especially the low-income ones, is affordable child care spaces to be built because that is the true cost to Canadian families. Unfortunately, the child benefit does not allay that gigantic cost to Canadian families.