Debates of Dec. 6th, 2016

Canada Elections Act

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-327, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act (political financing).

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce an important bill amending political party financing legislation. This bill will help lessen people's distrust of politicians by reducing the often undue influence of major donors over the party in power.

As recommended by the former chief electoral officer, Mr. Kingsley, this bill will reduce political financing contribution limits, thus enabling all voters of all parties and in all ridings to make their votes truly meaningful.

This fundamentally democratic bill is inspired by Quebec's Act to Govern the Financing of Political Parties, which was adopted unanimously by the National Assembly. I hope that all parties will support it.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Fisheries

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table another petition calling on the government to support my private member's bill, Bill C-228, to help save west coast wild salmon.

The petitioners know that Canada could become a world leader while protecting wild salmon. They are asking the government to stand up for the more than 9,000 family-supporting jobs, cultural communities, cultural traditions, and complex ecosystems that depend on healthy west coast wild salmon populations.

Democratic Reform

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to table petitions from hundreds of voters in Edmonton, Sherwood Park, and Camrose. In a democracy, every vote, every voter, should count. Frequently our electoral system allows a party to win 100% of the power with less than 40% of the vote. The Liberal government promised to change our electoral system, but time is running out. We want a fairer system in place before the next election.

The petitioners therefore call on the government to adopt a fairer proportional voting system so that the Parliament of Canada can actually reflect how electors vote.

Diabetes

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of putting forward petition E-288 today, a petition calling for the Government of Canada to put forward a standard type 1 diabetes care policy in all schools across the country based on the recommendations of a number of diabetes research advocacy organizations, including JDRF, Ophea, and the Canadian Diabetes Association.

The Environment

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition from British Columbians who are opposed to the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion.

The petitioners know that it triples the capacity of the Trans Mountain pipeline system to 890,000 barrels per day. They know that 40,000 barrels of oil have already leaked from the existing Kinder Morgan pipeline, and they know that it would create only 50 permanent full-time jobs. It will increase the number of oil tankers coming into Burrard Inlet from eight to 34 per month, putting at risk our waterways and the industries dependent on them.

Insecticides

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions today. The first deals with an ongoing issue other petitioners have raised. These petitioners are primarily from Barrie, Ontario.

The petitioners are calling for the government to take action against neonicotinoid insecticides, which are linked very closely to a serious decline in pollinators, threatening all agriculture as well as ecosystems.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, the second petition relates to the ongoing demand from British Columbians that the tanker ban be extended to the entire coast.

These petitioners are primarily from Victoria and areas within my riding. They call on the government to protect the coastline of British Columbia by establishing a permanent ban on crude oil tankers.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Employment Insurance Act—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on November 23, 2016, by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands concerning the requirement for a royal recommendation for Bill C-243, an act respecting the development of a national maternity assistance program strategy and amending the Employment Insurance Act (maternity benefits), standing in his name.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands for having raised this important matter as well as the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the hon. member for Essex, the hon. member for Cambridge, and the hon. member for Perth—Wellington for their comments.

This bill is intended to provide for the development and implementation of a national maternity assistance program strategy and to amend the Employment Insurance Act. It is the latter portion of the bill that is at issue in the present case.

The purpose of clauses 6 and 7 of the bill is to allow a pregnant woman to claim employment insurance benefits if she has obtained a certificate, completed by a medical doctor, attesting that she is unable to perform the duties of her regular or usual employment or of other suitable employment, because the job functions may pose a risk to her health or to that of her unborn child.

Under the present regime of the Employment Insurance Act, any pregnant woman could have access to pregnancy benefits for a total of 15 weeks starting, at the earliest, eight weeks before her due date. The decision on when to begin receiving benefits is entirely up to the applicant, and the act is silent as to any governing reasons or criteria. The bill would provide access to these benefits starting 15 weeks before the due date if there is a health risk due to the claimant's work environment.

In other words, the claimant, instead of claiming eight weeks of benefits before her baby was born and seven weeks after, could claim the entire 15 weeks prior to the birth of the child.

The member for Kingston and the Islands argued that Bill C-243 does not need a royal recommendation, since the effect of the bill would not result in an increase of the amount of benefits paid or an increase of the benefit period or of the number of weeks an individual is entitled to claim, nor would it change the eligibility requirements to make employment insurance benefits accessible to more claimants.

Since the bill would simply shift the existing entitlements, any cost associated with the changes would be merely operational. His central argument was that protecting maternal health is already a function of maternity benefits, and since the bill aims at achieving the same result through existing entitlements, it cannot be considered to be creating a new function.

He went on to indicate that since “applicants are already permitted to take benefits during their pregnancy, up to eight weeks prior to their due date, [it] is strong evidence that maternal health and maintaining a safe pregnancy are existing purposes of maternity benefits”.

The member for Essex, the member for Cambridge, and the member for Perth—Wellington indicated in their interventions that they supported these arguments.

The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader argued that the royal recommendation attached to the Employment Insurance Act covers not only the charges envisioned by the act but also the terms and conditions of each benefit. He stated that “altering when a person is eligible to receive a benefit under the Employment Insurance Act, even if the change to the benefit would not increase the overall charge, would constitute an alteration to the terms and conditions”.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, at page 834 states that:

A royal recommendation not only fixes the allowable charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. For this reason, a royal recommendation is required not only in the case where money is being appropriated, but also in the case where the authorization to spend for a specific purpose is significantly altered. Without a royal recommendation, a bill that either increases the amount of an appropriation, or extends its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications is inadmissible on the grounds that it infringes on the Crown’s financial initiative.

In the present case, it is clear, as the sponsor of the bill argued, that there is no increase in the overall amount of benefits. The shifting of the time period would have no bearing on the total amount of money disbursed.

However, in these matters, the cost is not the only factor. The question for the Chair is whether or not the changes proposed would significantly alter the objects, purposes, conditions, and qualifications of the benefits such that they would require a royal recommendation.

On May 8, 2008, Speaker Milliken delivered a ruling that can be found at page 5587 of Debates, on Bill C-490, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act (application for supplement, retroactive payments and other amendments). While the bill clearly provided for increases in supplements, it also made changes in the manner in which people applied for benefits and the extent to which qualified persons could claim benefits retroactively. In Speaker Milliken’s view, this:

...would alter the conditions and qualifications that were originally placed on public spending on old age security payments when those benefits were approved by Parliament.

As I have reminded the House on a number of occasions, funds may only be appropriated by Parliament in the manner and, as explicitly stated in Standing Order 79(1), for purposes covered by a royal recommendation.

In this case, Bill C-243 does not impose any new charge on the public treasury but creates a new set of conditions, relating to the safety of their workplace for their pregnancy, under which pregnant women could have access to benefits related to their pregnancy from as early as 15 weeks before the birth of their child. Though the sponsor of the bill argues otherwise, the Chair is not convinced that the current act allows spending under the circumstances, in the manner, and for the purposes he proposes. This being a circumstance not yet envisioned in the Employment Insurance Act, it infringes on the terms and conditions of the initial royal recommendation that accompanied that act and therefore requires now a new royal recommendation. This remains the case, even if the total amount of benefits stays the same.

Consequently, the Chair will decline to put the question on third reading of the bill in its present form unless a royal recommendation is received.

I thank hon. members for their attention.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2

[Amarjeet Sohi, Liberal, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

moved that Bill C-29, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, be read the third time and passed.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure to rise this morning at third reading of the budget implementation act, no. 2.

This is an act that is going to be transformational for our nation. I am pleased to be speaking this morning to all of my colleagues to ensure their support of this important act, which would put budget 2016 in place.

I am very pleased to rise in the House this morning to talk about the investments the Government of Canada is making to ensure vigorous growth, over the long term, of course, for the benefit of Canada and Canadians.

The Government of Canada's primary goal is not only to ensure economic growth, but to ensure that families, workers, and the most vulnerable in our society benefit from it. We cannot claim to be making progress unless everyone is prospering from what we are creating together in Canada.

There is no doubt that this is a global challenge, one to which Canada must rise with distinction. Unfortunately, hard work is not always synonymous with progress. That is the problem Canadians have asked us to address and that is what we are trying to do with measures like the ones in the budget implementation bill we are looking at today.

Let me elaborate on some of the Government of Canada's first steps. Canada has been one of the first countries in the world to put into practice the idea that when we have an economy that works for the middle class, we indeed have a country that works for everyone. With budget 2016, growing the middle class, and with the recent fall economic statement, the Government of Canada has taken important steps toward restoring the confidence of Canadian families in order to drive our economy forward.

We took a big first step by introducing a middle-class tax cut and raising taxes on the wealthiest 1% to help pay for it.

Thanks to our Canada child benefit, nine out of 10 Canadians families are getting more benefits for their children. On average, they will get almost $2,300 more for the 2016-2017 benefit year. It is helping hundreds of thousands of children get out of poverty. For some families, it could mean more money to spend on skates this winter, or gifts for Christmas. For others, it could mean paying down debt, or saving a little more. That is real progress.

We have also improved retirement security for workers today and for future generations, including signing a historic agreement with the provinces to strengthen the Canada pension plan. We have kept the promises we made to seniors by strengthening the retirement income system. We restored the age of eligibility for the old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits to 65. We also increased the guaranteed income supplement top-up benefit for single seniors.

We made it easier for young people from low and middle-income families to go to university or college by boosting Canada student grants, and recent grads now get a break on paying back their Canada student loans until they are earning at least $25,000 per year.

We have also immediately begun investing in our future. The investment we made in the infrastructure needs of our cities and communities creates jobs today, while building Canada's economy for the future. We intend to build on this momentum.

This second budget implementation bill would implement outstanding measures from the government's first budget entitled “Growing the Middle Class”.

The government is very proud of its first budget. This budget makes historic investments that put Canadian families first and represent a vital step in the growth of the middle class.

This is the first step in the long-term plan that will restore hope and revitalize the economy, which will benefit all Canadians.

As already mentioned, this budget, this plan, has been well received by Canadians and is receiving international recognition. The Financial Times called Canada “a glimmer of light”. The Wall Street Journal called Canada the poster child for the IMF's global growth strategy. The managing director of the International Monetary fund, Christine Lagarde, praised the merits of our approach. During the fall meetings of the IMF, Ms. Lagarde stated that all countries could follow Canada's example and mobilize all possible levers to truly tip the scales in the right direction and foster more growth, the type of growth that will benefit all Canadians.

Our budget has been given the thumbs-up because our efforts focus on the right things, which will ensure the growth of Canada's economy.

I will now move to the help we have provided to seniors. This budget implementation act supports our seniors by helping them to retire in more comfort and with dignity, and we are very proud of that. This is what we wish for all of our seniors. This will continue to be a significant priority in our aging society. Canada's retirement income system has been successful in reducing the incidence of poverty among Canadian seniors. However, some seniors continue to be at a heightened risk of living with low income. In particular, single seniors are nearly three times more likely to live with low income than seniors generally. Budget 2016 helps seniors retire comfortably and with dignity by making significant new investments that will support them in their retirement years. This is not just the right thing to do, it is the smart thing to do.

In budget 2016, we have repealed the provision in the Old Age Security Act that had increased the age of eligibility for the old age security and the guaranteed income supplement benefits from 65 to 67, and for the allowance benefits from 60 to 62 over the 2023-29 period. By reducing the age of eligibility, we have made sure that fewer seniors will retire in poverty. Returning the age of eligibility for old age security and the guaranteed income supplement benefits to 65 years old will put thousands of dollars back into the pockets of Canadians as they age and look to retire.

Budget 2016 also increased the guaranteed income supplement top-up benefit by up to $947 annually for the most vulnerable single seniors, starting in July 2016. This will help those seniors who rely almost exclusively on the old age security and the guaranteed income supplement benefits and who may therefore be at risk of experiencing financial difficulties.

As members can see, we are taking care of seniors, and the most vulnerable seniors in our society in particular. This enhancement more than doubles the current maximum guaranteed income supplement top-up benefit and represents a 10% increase in the total maximum guaranteed income supplement benefits available to the lowest income single seniors. I know that all members of the House recognize this is helping seniors in their own communities. I am sure that every member of the House has met single seniors who will benefit from this measure, and I hope they will support it, because I know that working for single seniors and for seniors generally is one of the top priorities of every member of the House.

This measure represents an investment of over $670 million per year and will improve the financial security of about 900,000 single seniors across Canada. Some 900,000 single seniors will be better off.

In this second budget implementation bill, we are delivering on the promise we made in budget 2016 to support senior couples who face higher costs of living and are at an increased risk of poverty because they must live apart. The second budget implementation bill amends the Old Age Security Act to make the program more flexible.

When couples who are receiving the guaranteed income supplement and spouse's allowance have to live apart for reasons beyond their control, each will receive benefits based on their individual income. By extending this treatment to couples receiving the guaranteed income supplement and spouse's allowance, the government is improving fairness for seniors and helping them live with dignity in retirement.

The Government of Canada has also reached a historic agreement with the provincial governments to enhance the Canada pension plan. This plays a key part in our provision of support for the middle class. The Department of Finance has examined whether families nearing retirement are adequately prepared. We have found that about one in four Canadian families approaching retirement, some 1.1 million families, are at risk of not saving enough to maintain their current standard of living when they retire. The risk is highest for middle-income families. Families without workplace pensions are at an even greater risk of under-saving for retirement. In fact, one-third of these families are at risk.

We are aware of the need to help Canadians save more and that is why we are acting. Saving more will mean they will be more confident about their future and their ability to secure a dignified retirement.

There is a particular concern regarding younger Canadians, who tend to have higher debts than previous generations and who, in most cases, will live longer than previous generations. They face the challenge of securing adequate retirement savings at a time when fewer can expect to work in jobs that include a workplace pension plan. That is why the measures in this law are going to help our younger generation. We talked about seniors and now we are talking about youth. I know that members of the House are very concerned about making sure that our youth can retire in dignity as well.

Let me move now to the protection of consumers in the Bank Act.

Canadians deserve financial consumer protection that keeps pace with their needs. In line with this, the second budget implementation bill would amend the Bank Act in order to strengthen and modernize the financial consumer protection framework. That is a very good thing. It is great news for Canadian consumers. The financial sector plays an important role in supporting Canada's economic growth.

Each day, the nation's financial institutions meet the financial needs of consumers and large and small businesses and make payments and financial transactions possible. They form the infrastructure of our market system. We want to make sure that the financial sector is able to adapt to new trends, including emerging financial innovation and technologies that will challenge existing business models, evolving consumer preferences and customer relationships, changing demographics, and globalization.

Budget 2016 proposes to modernize the financial consumer protection framework by clarifying and enhancing consumer protection in the Bank Act, and we will work with stakeholders to support the implementation of a national framework. The bill proposes to do exactly that. It proposes to consolidate and streamline existing consumer provisions in one new chapter of the Bank Act, introduce amendments to the Bank Act to enhance consumer protection in the areas of access to basic banking services, business practices, disclosure, complaints handling, as well as corporate governance and accountability. That is what consumers want. They want the protection that will be afforded by these new provisions.

The federal government is exercising leadership by taking targeted steps to strengthen financial consumer protection. That is what Canadians have told us. That is what we are doing. These reforms will reaffirm the federal government's intent to have a system of exclusive rules for consumer protection to ensure an efficient national banking system from coast to coast to coast. Wherever consumers are and will be during their careers across Canada, they will always find this government on their side to protect their consumer rights.

Let me move to the Canada child benefit.

One of the foundations of our plan to strengthen the middle class is also a foundation of our first budget. In budget 2016, we brought forward the new Canada child benefit. This benefit will help parents better support what is most precious to them, their children. The Canada child benefit is simpler and more generous than the child benefit plan that it is replacing. It is also completely tax-free.

Furthermore, it is better targeted to help those who most need it. As I mentioned at the beginning of my presentation, the Canada child benefit will help bring hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty in 2017, compared with 2014. Since the benefit was implemented in July, nine families out of ten are receiving more money than they did under the previous child benefit system. I know that all the parliamentarians here in the House know at least one family in their riding that is going to benefit from the new system. Indeed I think they know hundreds, if not thousands of families, who are going to benefit from it in their ridings. By voting for this bill at third reading, they will be voting to help families in their ridings all across the country.

Whether this extra money is used to buy school supplies, to help pay grocery bills, or to buy warm winter coats, the benefit will help parents all over the country to cover the high costs of raising their children.

Allow me to explain how this benefit will be helping Canadian families. The parents of children under 18 will be receiving up to $6,400 annually for each child under the age of six, and up to $5,400 per child between the ages of six and 17. In supporting this budget implementation act, my esteemed colleagues will be helping to ensure that the Canada child benefit is indexed to inflation starting in 2020, so that families can count on this additional assistance for many years more.

I hope that all parliamentarians in the House will vote in favour of this bill because it is precisely the families in their ridings, the people who sent them to Ottawa, who are going to benefit from it. Whether it is our seniors, our youth or our families, the people who sent them to Ottawa are the people who will be helped thanks to this bill.

In conclusion, budget 2016 represents a giant step forward in our plan to put people first and to deliver the help they need now, while investing for the years and decades to come. I know members want to invest in the future and put people first, because those are the same people who sent them to Ottawa.

With these investments, inspired by a sense of fairness, we would ensure that Canada's best days lie ahead. Fairness is about everything we stand for. As government and as all parliamentarians, I am sure, we want to do what is fair for all Canadians: Canadian families, seniors, and youth in each of our ridings. Our plan is about creating the necessary conditions to ensure that hope and hard work will not be wasted but rewarded. I am sure every member believes that is true. People working hard in our country should be rewarded. Growth should be inclusive. This is about inclusive growth.

The measures we present in this bill are about inclusive growth, and I do not believe any member in the House would disagree with inclusive growth in our country, investing in families, in seniors, and in youth, and making sure that when people retire, they can retire with dignity. Those are beliefs and values that I am sure are shared by all members in the House. Our children and grandchildren will remember this historic moment. When they vote, they will remember what was done for them, whether it was investments for their future or inclusive growth in our country. The Government of Canada is focused on the larger picture of ensuring prosperity for Canadians well beyond its 150th birthday.

I will finish by saying that I encourage all members in the House to support this bill, not just because it is the smart thing but because it is the right thing to do for the people who sent them to Ottawa. Their voices are those of families, youth, and seniors who sent them to Ottawa to work for them.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague said a couple of things right. I will give him that. We are the voice of our constituents. There were 338 members of Parliament elected to be the voices of our constituents, to deliver their voices from our ridings to Ottawa, not the other way around. We are talking about investing in the future, the investments that the government is going to make, the promises the government wants to keep, and the enormous amount of money the government wants to spend.

However, I want to talk about something else. I live in the beautiful riding of Cariboo—Prince George, and people have been hard hit. There is no softwood lumber agreement and projects are not being approved. I want to know from the member what this budget would do to create jobs and healthy and prosperous lives in my riding. They do not want handouts; they want jobs. What would this bill do?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Cariboo—Prince George is one of the members who is always there when we are talking about investing in the future. I am pleased to respond to his question because he will recognize that by supporting this bill he would do a number of things to help the people in Cariboo—Prince George. Just like the people in Shawinigan in my home riding of Saint-Maurice—Champlain, those are the people who sent us here.

The first thing we did was to reduce taxes for the middle class. This allows people in the member's own riding to put more money in their pockets so they can make the choice to invest, to save for their retirement or their future, or invest in their children. With the Canada child benefit, nine families out of 10 are going to be better off. I know there are thousands of families in the member's riding of Cariboo—Prince George who are going to benefit. Talking about our investment for students, I am sure that the students in Cariboo—Prince George would agree with me that enhancing the student grants is a good thing, and waiting until they earn $25,000 to repay these loans is a good thing for students.

There is a number of good things in this bill to help the people of Cariboo—Prince George as well as Canadians across the nation. That is the right thing to do for Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, with whom it is my pleasure to sit on the Standing Committee on Finance.

I would like to go back to the question of consumer protection and the Bank Act. I will refute virtually the entirety of the interpretation made by my colleague. He says that this is the Liberal government’s response to the Marcotte ruling, but that is rather ironic, because if the complaint that led to the Marcotte ruling had been filed under the process proposed by these changes, there would have been no Marcotte ruling, because there would have been no possibility of bringing this sort of class action. That is clear, according to the opinion of most legal experts.

In an article in Le Soleil, a commentary by Brigitte Breton clearly demonstrates that consumers will be the losers in this change. I cannot understand how my colleague can claim that consumers will be better served, particularly since consumer protection is a provincial jurisdiction.

Can he resolve this paradox for me?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, for whom I have enormous respect, for his question. He is one of the eminent members of the Standing Committee on Finance. I always enjoy discussing the issues with him.

To give a very simple response to his question, I would like to list the principles in this bill that will amend the Bank Act in order to protect Canadian consumers.

Basic banking services should be accessible. I am sure that my colleague will agree on that point.

Disclosure should enable an institution’s customers and the public to make informed financial decisions. I am sure that is a principle that my colleague subscribes to.

An institution’s customers and the public should be treated fairly. I am sure that my colleague is in favour of fairness.

Complaints processes should be impartial, transparent and responsive. I am sure that my colleague supports these principles.

These are the principles we want to promote to protect consumers in Quebec and all across the country. That way, whenever they do banking, both in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada, consumers will always be sure they can rely on measures that will afford them proper protection.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I just want to raise a question for the member opposite. His government talks all the time about innovation and how we need to support innovation in this country. He and his government talk about how they need to co-operate with the provinces on health care and improving our health care. Yet, Bill C-29 targets doctors, particularly medical specialists, so that those who work in group-structure plans could not access the preferential tax rate for small businesses. This would drive doctors to other jurisdictions, particularly the United States.

How can I go back to my riding of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola where, when I go to the rural areas, I continually hear about access to health care and access to doctors? Why is the only innovation the government has for health care taking more money from doctors and chasing them away?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member also sits on our finance committee, and I would like to commend him for his great work on that committee.

We appreciate the work doctors are doing across our nation, as well as accountants and lawyers. The only thing we said is that we are not raising taxes on anyone. We just clarified what was happening. What we said, and Canadians understand, is that it is about fairness. This government will always stand for tax fairness.

We are saying that, for one small-business corporation in this country, it is going to get one small-business tax deduction: one corporation, one deduction. I think everyone in the nation understands that. This is all about fairness.

I was at the committee when we heard from the Canadian Medical Association, from doctors, and I thank them for their work. Doctors told us that they created this group to advance science and provide health care, not because of tax structure, and I believe them when they say that. People understand it is one corporation, one deduction.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member who always speaks very well in the House, defending his position.

I would like to ask a question for the hon. member. A lot of promises were made during the election for supporting small business owners, and yet again, there is no tax cut for small businesses and no cap on transaction fees for credit cards.

Small businesses right across the country are suffering, and they are particularly suffering in my province of Alberta with the downturn in the economy.

Could the member explain why the government is still not giving breaks to small business?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for raising the concerns of her constituents in Alberta, because we care very much about what is going on in Alberta and across the nation, obviously.

I went across the country, from Moncton to Yellowknife, during pre-budget consultations. I probably met with thousands of people. What small business has told us is that we need to make sure the economy is working.

Our belief is that, when we invest in the middle class, the middle class will do well and the economy is going to do well in our country. What small business operators told us they wanted was consumers who could buy their products and services. I think the measures we have taken are going to improve the middle class in our country.

If we have a strong middle class, clearly we will have good small and medium-sized businesses that are going to thrive in our country. That is why we are investing in the middle class, because we know this will benefit small businesses and indeed all businesses across our country.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I must say that the speech I have just heard from my colleague on the other side of the House is one of the most tiresome and cynical speeches I have heard since being elected to this place.

The government is in such a hurry to please the banks that it decided to impose a gag order yesterday so it could move forward with Bill C-29. They talk to us about modernizing the banking system by reducing the rules, by setting aside the Consumer Protection Act we have in Quebec, and by ensuring that people are less well protected with a uniform system, even though the entire National Assembly has denounced this.

What matters most to my colleague: the Quebec voters in his riding or the rich bank lobby?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have great respect for my colleague.

It is rare to be told in the House that one’s speech was the most tiresome ever heard. However I will reassure my colleague by telling him that I work exclusively for the Canadians and the Quebeckers who sent me here, to Ottawa, to represent them for the great riding of Saint-Maurice—Champlain.

What we have done is to assume our responsibilities, because as my colleague was saying, in the Marcotte ruling we were asked to modernize and clarify the rules, so that is what we did.

I can assure my colleague that, as our Prime Minister says, “better is always possible”. I will therefore take pains to ensure that my next speech is more interesting for him.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise to participate in a debate in this chamber. Normally, it is rare for me to speak to a bill numerous times. However, there is so much in Bill C-29 that is of serious concern, it begs for debate.

To be clear, I understand that omnibus budget implementation acts, as bill C-29 most certainly is, will always carry criticism. As a member of the former government in the last Parliament, I can attest to that, as could any member who was a member of Parliament and is elected with us today.

However, I have noticed that there is one profound difference between much of the criticism of the last Conservative government and the criticism directed at the current Liberal government. What is that difference? By and large, when criticism was levied at the former Conservative government, more often than not it was based on hypotheticals. Headlines would typically read, “X, Y, Z could happen”, or “Event Y, X, Z might happen”.

Typically, this criticism was from some sort of expert of which there is no shortage in the Ottawa bubble. Even with my own “free the grapes” bill to legalize direct-to-consumer interprovincial wine shipments, which the former Conservative government expanded to apply to craft beer and artisan spirits in subsequent omnibus budget implementation acts, experts warned it could cost provincial liquor monopolies millions of dollars. Yet, we know in those provinces that do allow direct-to-consumer shipping, like my very home province of British Columbia, this of course did not happen. In fact, in British Columbia, we see consumption and sales of B.C. wine, year over year, perform better and better. Again, the experts were wrong.

However, with our friends, the Liberals, the criticism is not what might happen or what could happen, it is what will happen.

Let me give an example. As part of Bill C-29, the Liberals propose to seriously change the multiplication rates on the small business deduction rules.

We all know the Prime Minister does not like small business. The Liberals have reneged on promised cuts to small business. The Prime Minister is on the record for past stating that he believes small business is simply a way for wealthy people to avoid paying higher tax, which is ironic, coming from a trust fund millionaire. Why have a trust fund? Obviously for tax advantages, but I digress.

Why should we care that the Liberals are making these tax changes for two small business tax rates? Here is a simple example. Many Canadians are not aware of this or may not be aware of this. However, a significant number of physicians and surgeons operate in partnership with each other as small businesses. We all know physicians and surgeons work together within our medical community. Therefore, it is not a surprise that this extends into business and taxation areas as well.

Without delving too far into the technical tax ramifications of Bill C-29, from my time on the finance committee, the end result is that these changes will massively impact many Canadian physicians and surgeons.

Those who know me know I do not normally use a word like “massively”. What does “massively” mean, in the context of this discussion? In some cases, the amount of corporate tax paid could increase not by 2%, not by 5%, not 10% or 15%, but it could actually double. This is not what could or possibly might happen. This is what will happen.

The Canadian Medical Association hired a well-respected independent accounting firm to assess and quantify these numbers. They are not hypothetical. These changes will seriously impact a significant amount of physicians and surgeons all across our great country.

Let us not forget the Liberals are also raising taxes on those earning $200,000 per year. Many physicians and surgeons will be hit there, as well.

In short, we could easily call this the “Liberal war on doctors”.

Probably every member in this place knows of ongoing struggles in communities, not just in Canada but across North America, with respect to a shortage of doctors. Considering the massive amount of taxpayer subsidies in Canadian post-secondary institutions, Canada can ill afford to act as a training ground for new doctors to take those much-needed skills elsewhere.

Let us look at the more likely scenario. As much as this federal Liberal government enjoys taking money away from Canada's doctors and physicians, Ottawa, for the most part, does not pay or employ them. It is up to provinces to employ doctors and physicians. In other words, to keep doctors and not lose them to more competitive jurisdictions, most notably the United States, the provinces will likely be forced to make up the hit to the pocket books of doctors' net take-home pay created by the Liberals. It is yet another form of downloading from the Liberal government, and most people have not heard about it.

It gets more offensive. At the same time the Liberals are looking to severely reduce the net take-home pay of doctors, they are conducting a whisper campaign. They may start taxing employer provided medical benefits, all to pay for the Liberals' reckless spending in Ottawa. This is an insult to Canada's doctors. It is unlikely there is a member in this place that has not heard from physicians and surgeons warning the Liberal government of the dire and serious long-term consequences if the Liberals continue to impose these punitive tax changes.

In my riding of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, I can state with certainty that I will stand for our doctors in speaking out in opposing these changes. Keep in mind, in many regions we are increasingly relying on foreign trained doctors to make up for our lack of capacity. I mention this because a foreign doctor taking the time to immigrate to Canada could just as easily look at other countries as alternatives. These are all very serious concerns. I hope the government is taking this fully into account. It is another reason why I oppose Bill C-29.

While on the same subject of long-term problems that the budget implementation act is creating, let us not forget there is no longer any path to return to balanced budgets. This is yet another broken promise from the Liberal government. Every member in this room, regardless of what side of the House he or she sits on, knows that one day down the road this will create a serious problem. Contrary to what the Prime Minister and the government have past stated, budgets do not balance themselves.

We already see the Liberal government raising taxes in many areas and hinting it is looking at adding more, all because their fiscal plan is failing. I appreciate the government would rather not be in the fiscal situation it is in. It was handed a surplus by a former government, a $2.9 billion at the year-end of 2015, as confirmed by the parliamentary budget office. That is a fact. Now it is massively in deficit, adding huge debt, all while the Prime Minister just sits around. Our finance minister has become an investing in the middle-class Liberal talking point machine. How did we get here, and so soon?

I know members on the government side are also concerned. People enter public office to help build a stronger Canada, not to break promises and create massive debt while creating hardship both now and down the road. Those are things we should realize.

I also want to give some credit where credit is due. I commend the fact the Liberal government did support the Trans Mountain pipeline recently, a decision for a populist Prime Minister, who is very image conscious, knowing it would be very unpopular with many of those who voted Liberal. I commend the government for making a difficult decision that hopefully can help to reverse the current trajectory this budget is putting us into.

However, I also have to point out that much of the anger of many first nation communities against this pipeline stems from the fact that they believe the Prime Minister promised them a veto, which will be seen as another Liberal broken promise, one that I imagine will carry some consequence for members in British Columbia.

We still have the challenge of the much-needed softwood lumber deal. The Prime Minister jetsetted off to Washington with a massive entourage of Liberal elites on the tab of taxpayers. He told Canadians that they would get good value from the trip on deals like softwood lumber. Now we know that has not happened. It is no different than jetsetting off to Davos. Once again, big promises from the Prime Minister, but he came home empty handed.

Now we have what we are told is an infrastructure bank coming. Billions that could be spent building Canadian infrastructure is instead being diverted, ultimately to act as seed money where it will line the pockets of wealthy corporate interests, with a $100 million-minimum project price tag. How many members in this place have a municipality in their riding that can afford projects of the magnitude they are discussing? Guess what? They will all get to pay for the high interest rate of return, for those few who can.

People can understand why wealthy foreign nationals are lining up to pay $1,500 for each pay to play access to our Prime Minister. That $1,500 is clearly for them a great investment. However, it is a terrible return for Canadians who will be left paying the bill. On top of that, they will be paying for a national Liberal carbon tax, all at a time when our largest trading partner and competitor is going to be lowering taxes to be more competitive and raising taxes on those companies moving outside of its borders. Meanwhile, the Liberal government is helping them to do exactly that by raising taxes here to make being an employer more costly and less affordable.

Let us not forget that the Liberal government has also made changes to the mortgage rules, which will see the dream of owning a home for many Canadian families gone. We are repeatedly told that all of this is being done to help the middle class.

In my riding, many real middle-class families are already telling me that they do not want this help from the Liberal government, because they cannot afford it. Who could blame them, more so if one is also about to be taxed on health care benefits? This would be particularly punitive and unfair in British Columbia, because British Columbia also charges monthly medical service premiums, MSP, which is over and above what is paid in income tax. Hopefully, the Liberal MPs from B.C. have raised that point with the finance minister.

While I am on my feet, the final subject I will broach is the good news I have to share with this place. Recently we learned that the Comeau decision will be referred to the Supreme Court by the province of New Brunswick. This has huge potential ramifications for Canadian internal trade. While the Liberals opposed this case being heard by the Supreme Court, I remain hopeful that our Supreme Court will take the case on and give it careful scrutiny. As much as I like the new pro-trade tone I have been hearing from the trade minister, the Liberals continued silence on internal trade just is not good enough, but hopefully that will change.

Before I close, I would like to pass on that this was not a speech I greatly enjoyed giving. However, these concerns are very real and I feel must be put on the record. I know there are good people on the government side of the House and we know the Prime Minister spends more time in airports and in the air than he does in his office. Whoever comes up with some of these policy ideas is part of the problem not part of the solution. In my view, a good internal shakeup is required, and we need a clear path in a different direction.

Over the past decade, we watched the Canadian middle class surpass the United States in prosperity, all while taxes were being lowered, jobs increased, and the budget was ultimately balanced. Today, the budget implementation bill sets us in the wrong direction, the opposite direction, with massive debt, deficits, no net new jobs, and higher taxes coming in many areas.

Every member in this place hopes that this situation changes. However, in my view, Bill C-29 is simply not the answer and I simply cannot support it.

I thank all members for hearing a member's concerns. I do hope we can find ways in the future where we can see jobs, where we can see added investment, where we can see further facilitated trade, where we can see the things that people sent us here to do, the public interest to be maintained, and for the Liberal government to look at the way that it is fundraising and ask if that is in the name of the public trust, because we should always be mindful that democracy, that the rule of law, has to have real meaning. If the leaders of a country cannot project those values, if they cannot project those items that are core to holding those things, then how can we expect anyone else to follow that example?

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, my friend ended his speech by talking about real meaning. I wonder if he sees real meaning in efforts to lift 300,000 children out of poverty and improve the situation for nine out of 10 Canadian families, if he sees real meaning behind a program that would provide upward of $1,000 for the most vulnerable, low-income, single seniors in our country, and if he sees real meaning in providing adequate service delivery to veterans across this country so that they can be treated with respect for the service they have provided for this country, a program that would reverse mean-spirited closures by the previous government.

Is that the sort of real meaning he is looking for in order for Canadians to understand when he talks about the actions of this government?