Debates of May 10th, 2016

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1

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

Madam Speaker, I want to reference, just for a minute, the member for Winnipeg North and his comments from earlier today when he said that this budget is largely a fulfillment of the Liberal platform.

It was funny enough to listen him, but what was really sad was to see that he actually kept a straight face while he was saying that. We know that the small deficit the Liberals promised of $10 billion, the small business tax reduction, and the promise of palliative care, none of these are in the budget.

I want to ask a question for my colleague. I thank her for highlighting the need for improved palliative care, especially in light of the current conversation around physician-assisted suicide. How are the member's constituents responding to her in terms of the lack of palliative care, when at the same time we are talking about actually offering, to patients who request it, physician-assisted dying, where there is no palliative care available? Where is the choice?

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I share the concern that there is not adequate palliative care.

We know we have an aging population. We know we need to plan for a future when people are going to be facing multiple challenges.

We need to see an investment in home care, so we can keep people in their homes and keep them healthy and strong as long as we can. We need to make sure that, when the time comes, the services are there. When the time comes that anybody has to make a decision for themselves, I hope we have the services that are adequate to do it in a respectful way.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I could certainly echo the same concerns with this budget from my riding.

I put the question to the Liberals. I put the question to the Conservatives. I am wondering if she would like to respond to it. Even the IMF thinks that the progressive thing to do is to invest more in child care so that women can enter the workforce and increase productivity.

Would the member like to speak to what the IMF is calling on the government to do?

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, absolutely, I feel we need to have a strategy around child care across this country.

I believe the federal government should be taking leadership and working with its counterparts in the provinces and territories to make a strategy that makes sense.

The reality is that affordable child care makes a difference. It means women can afford to go back to work, or to have the opportunity to grow their own business. I know that, for the women in my riding, it would mean a real opportunity.

I also think it is important to remember that it is often women who make this sacrifice. It is a wonderful thing. I myself stayed home with my children for the first seven years. It was a huge gift to me and my family, and we struggled for it, but it was something I really felt was important. However, this is the point, as the member said. In my riding they need to feel they have a choice. Affordable child care gives families a choice.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the budget implementation and the government's objective to diminish private economic activity through the reckless spending of public money.

Before I get there, permit me to provide a bit of information on the province I call home, as it seems from this budget that both the Minister of Employment and the Minister of Finance appear to be unfamiliar with where and what Saskatchewan is.

Saskatchewan is a landlocked province. It represents 7% of the land mass of Canada and has 10% of its fresh water. Saskatchewan is a cartographer's delight, as its borders are all parallels and meridians. There are two major natural regions, the Canadian Shield in the north, and the Interior Plains in the south. We have over 11% of the rail network, and the largest network of secondary roads in Canada.

In Saskatchewan, we are mighty familiar with sunny ways, as we receive more hours of sunshine per year than any other province. We also understand the deception, that sunny ways does not necessarily mean warmth. Some people think our winters can be bitterly cold.

With 3% of Canada's population, Saskatchewan contributes 4.5% to the GDP. Our GDP per capita contribution is $28,000 more than Quebec, which has seven times our population. Since 2007, we have also become a net contributor to the equalization scheme. Despite the provincial economy that is experiencing challenges due to decreases in world oil prices, we are forecast to contribute a further $1.7 billion, or 10% of equalization transfers for our fellow Canadians to the east.

In Saskatchewan, we have a very diversified economy, much of which was not recognized in the borrow-and-spend budget. Saskatchewan is often referred to as the bread basket, due to its producing 47% of the wheat grown in Canada. Along with peas, soybeans, lentils, flax, barley and canola, Saskatchewan is able to contribute to feeding both Canadians and the world through exporting these crops. These farms are small businesses, which the budget betrays by not reducing the small business taxes promised by the Liberals during the election.

Beyond its size, the agriculture industry in Saskatchewan has actively participated in modern agriculture techniques that are highly technologically advanced; help produce larger, more nutrient-rich crops; help maintain soil conditions; and help sequester greenhouse gas emissions like C0₂, methane, and nitrous oxide.

Modern farming techniques contribute to a dichotomy between the ability to feed vast numbers of people, thereby reducing starvation, and the role of food production as carbon sinks in climate mitigation. Agricultural producers in Saskatchewan are very cognizant of the negatives of natural and man-made CO₂, and continue to work diligently to adopt zero tillage, organic farming practices, and the development of crops that require less water to grow.

In place of flying in jets to hobnob with environmentalists from around the world and promising to reduce emissions by government fiat, Saskatchewan's agriculture producers are taking a proactive role in reducing emissions through their actions.

In Saskatchewan, we work hard to both provide economic activity and to ensure that we are stewards of the land and resources.

In my riding of Souris—Moose Mountain, we have over 300 years of proven coal reserves. We use this coal to generate electricity, which meets 50% of Saskatchewan's electricity requirements.

While the government wants to shut down the coal industry because it is dirty and pollutes the environment, in Saskatchewan we came up with a less radical plan. Rather than shutting down the coal plants, losing millions of dollars of economic activity, and throwing thousands of people out of work, we instead invested $1.4 billion in an innovative carbon capture project, to which the previous Conservative government contributed $250 million.

The carbon capture project cleans the CO₂ particulates produced from using coal for electrical power. While this continued use of fossil fuels is an anathema to environmentalists, the project at Boundary Dam is designed to remove the equivalent of pollution emitted by 250,000 automobiles per year. In fact, in the month of March 2016, over 83,000 tonnes of CO₂ were captured, the equivalent of 700 cars per day being off the road.

The CO₂ is sold to an oil company which uses it to stimulate oil and gas wells to improve its productivity while reducing the use of chemicals and water, which are also used to stimulate oil production. It is also sequestered miles underground.

This is technology that can be used around the world for coal generation plants that continue to meet the needs of electricity requirements of more than 50% of the world's population. This is innovation. This is infrastructure. This is green technology. This creates jobs.

Carbon capture is not a perfect system, but we take a measured approach in Saskatchewan. This is proving to be a less disruptive solution to reducing C0₂ emissions than simply shutting coal-powered generation facilities with nothing to replace that source of electricity.

I am sure that those who believe that The Flintstones is a documentary, and who continue to burn fossil fuels to attend conferences around the world to discuss how to shut down the fossil fuel industry, are appalled by this approach. However, it sure beats their alternative of economic disruption, massive unemployment, and, as has been experienced in Ontario, huge increases in electricity costs. This will harm businesses and individuals by increasing the energy costs by over 70% in the next 10 years.

The Liberals talk a good game about growing the economy and environmental protection. In my riding, we also produce lots of oil. Moosomin, Saskatchewan is the proposed jumping off point for the proposed energy east pipeline to transport oil produced in Saskatchewan, North Dakota, and Alberta across Canada to refineries and ports in the Atlantic provinces. This would remove millions of barrels of oil from being transported by rail across the country and through communities. The government response to this huge influx of private capital into infrastructure has been to dither and delay.

The government provided nothing in the budget for a proposal from a resident in my riding, which was supported by Premier Wall, to engage out-of-work oil workers in oil sites reclamation projects. Instead, the Prime Minister came to Saskatchewan and told us that we should be happy that the downturn in energy prices has not hit us harder. I am not sure how to explain that to an oil field services company that has had to lay off 22 of its 26 employees. There are no job-creating strategies within this budget.

While an American oil company proceeds with building a 50,000 barrel-per-day refinery in North Dakota, a few miles south of my riding, we study and delay $15 billion of private money to expand a transportation system for Canadian-produced oil. I am not sure why sunny ways should make us glad that our biggest competitor in the oil industry in North America generates employment and economic activity while we equivocate and utter meaningless bromides.

Over the past 40 years, a fairly consistent cycle of activity has been followed in the oil fields in southeast Saskatchewan. Oil workers stop work for two to three months in the spring while the land thaws. Some of these workers take up part-time work in the agriculture sector during seeding, or apply for employment insurance while they wait for work in the oil industry to resume. With the changes in the oil industry and lack of encouragement for the industry by the government, instead of applying for employment insurance, these oil workers are simply giving up. Again, I am not sure why we should be glad in Saskatchewan that the government has no idea where the oil field is and refuses to extend, by a few weeks, the access to employment insurance in the oil fields of southeast Saskatchewan.

Saskatchewan is a province that is very dependent upon the export of our products and services. The TPP agreement, entered into with 12 other Pacific countries, provides an opportunity for ranchers, architects, manufacturers, food producers, education and health workers, and all the other sectors of Saskatchewan's diverse economy, to have access to wider markets. Removing tariffs on cattle, canola, honey and other agriculture products, and allowing for the unimpeded movement of professionals, is nothing but great for the Saskatchewan economy. The positive impact of this agreement was ignored in the budget, and the government seems to be sending signals that it is unsure if it wants to participate with countries representing 40% of the world's trade.

In conclusion, Saskatchewan is an important contributor to the well-being of the Canadian economy. We have a way of life that allows individuals and communities to grow, to contribute to the image of Canadians all around the world as fair-minded, honest, and law-abiding people. The indifference of the Prime Minister to the challenges of those employed in the fossil fuel industry, the uncertainty of the government's actions with respect to privately funded national infrastructure programs, and the lack of commitment in supporting free trade agreements is causing concern among the many industries and communities in Saskatchewan. They are being left with an impression that the federal government is more intent on attacking the way of life we have developed than in providing support, leadership, and a commitment to improving the function and future of our community.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting to hear what my friends say from other regions across the country. It gives me different perspectives to learn about. I was particularly interested in what the member raised about farming and organic farming, and the steps that are being taken in Saskatchewan to support sustainable agriculture. I am wondering if he could perhaps share a bit more, as he kind of glanced over it. I would love to hear his thoughts about how making investments in green technologies and in science to support having sustainable agriculture may assist people in Saskatchewan.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned, the backbone in Saskatchewan and in my riding is the agriculture industry. It sustains and keeps things surviving. Right now, we are hurting in our province because of the downturn of the oil industry.

However, our agriculture industry has advanced in learning agriculture practices of reducing tillage, moving crops around so we can put nitrogens, etc., back into the earth, and using products that use less water to sustain the industry. These farmers need a market to move that to, because I am in a part of the world where we have to export everything.

For so long in Saskatchewan, and in my riding, we have been exporting our people. We have exports of agriculture, canola, oil, and potash. We need to be able to export and to move all of those things, whether by road or by rail, because we are not flying it out of there. As the agriculture industry produces greater crops, it needs a market to move them to.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, my honourable colleague used the term of fair, honest, and law-abiding people to describe working people in that constituency. That term describes working-class Canadians all over Canada. It also underscores the point that in the last 30 years, workers in Canada have contributed to an economic growth of over 50%.

Now we are seeing that these are the people who are struggling. We have higher debt loads per household. We have people who have retirement insecurity. We have people who are retiring with no dignity. We have workers who cannot afford child care. It seems that we have this section of our society that is turning all of the gears for a healthy economy being eroded.

We have talked about that before in a partisan way, so my question for the member is actually this. Who do you think the members of the middle class are who are being addressed in this budget?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind the member to address questions to the Chair as opposed to individual members.

The member for Souris—Moose Mountain would like to respond.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I often ask that same question. Who does the current government think the middle class is, and where is the government setting its priorities?

In Saskatchewan and in my riding, we have people in various walks of life, those who have nothing because the oil industry has taken them out of a well-paying job. They are trying to survive and to keep their families together in an area instead of moving away. We are seeing members of our middle class who are losing their jobs because this budget provides no indication of any jobs that will be created.

Before, our previous Conservative government reduced our taxes to the lowest they have been in 50 years. That allowed people to have more money in their pockets and to sustain the lifestyle that we would like to see for all Canadians.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today to this budget bill. Bill C-15 is very important to Canadians, but unfortunately, time allocation was imposed by the Liberals.

My eyes have been tested and I am red-green colour-blind, but I have been in Parliament for over 10 years, and I think I have become red-blue colour-blind, because I see the same things happening over and over again. It is difficult for me to try to make sense of all this.

Hon. members are heckling again, as usual, but that is okay. I know they do not like to hear any criticisms or complaints, despite the sunny ways and despite the ability to have a moment in the House. That is fine, I will give them that, but the reality is that every member will not have the opportunity to participate because of closure that was put on the debate.

When the Liberals were on this side, they would attack the government over and over about the use of closure. There were over 100 closure motions by the Conservatives. Lo and behold, the Liberals got the ring, put it on real quick, and sure enough, down came the hammer of closure of debate on a number of things, including this budget bill. We are talking about $200 billion; no problem. The Liberals do not want to hear from members of their own backbench. In fact, most of them actually will not be speaking. It is too bad.

I am sure their constituents would like to know how important this budget is to their ridings, all the popular things, the things they believe in. Members could talk about it, but apparently, they are not allowed. Closure has been put on it. It is unfortunate. I do not know whether it is because they cannot test their mettle in this place. Maybe they are afraid that the public will understand what is taking place as we move away from the so-called new Parliament that we were supposed to have, to the same old system.

It is interesting that the Liberals defend their use of closure by using the bar of the previous government. I can say that bar is much lower than this one here. That bar is so low there is no way anyone could limbo under it at any point in time. That is no defence. Promises were made and parliamentarians, including some of the Liberal members, want to engage in conversation about issues, whether at committee or in the chamber.

The industry committee does a very good job of having that healthy debate. Witnesses have appeared at committee, people from different departments and ministers, and now there is a new study with regard to manufacturing challenges in our country. That has been done very much in a positive manner. People expressed different opinions, but it was done with respect. There is a set of rules in that committee. We do not see committees closing down debate right now, but unfortunately, that is what is happening here.

There was a time when budgets would pass, but that stopped and became much more evident during the Paul Martin administration. That was the beginning of the era of slipping different pieces of legislation into the overall budget. In the United States, they call them riders, the things that tag along to get a particular budget or other legislation passed. They will attach all kinds of things for their ridings or areas to get it done.

What we have here is critical to democracy and was spoken about many times right here in the last Parliament about how it undermined legislation, democratic reform, the ability for members to have a place to state their cases for their constituents. This is supposed to be a country united, not divided by these tactics. We have lost that.

Here is the problem that we faced with the previous administration regarding some of the processes that it followed. Guess where they are? A lot of those things are in the Supreme Court. A lot of the issues get through here. They do not go to committee for vetting. There are no suggestions, whether the government likes them or not, and then they decide whether to move on, but at least they have had a chance to think about it.

I remember the days when we would find many technical and other errors in bills that even if we did not agree 100% with the bill, the bill was carried at the end of the day, through democracy. It was not held up because we did not do our business.

That is what we have in this bill, between the banking information that is going on, retroactive legislation going back in time to change things, and other areas that are affected significantly.

We look at that, and we have some very serious issues that are taking place in this House. One of ours is veterans. I was particularly perturbed by the finance minister this morning alleging that we did not support veterans because we did not actually support the budget bill.

I rose in this House to challenge that assertion because every single member, whether we like something or not, stands up for our veterans and their perspective. They fought for that. They are people like Earl Scofield, who has passed away. He was one of my heroes and mentors. He was an aboriginal senator. He flew 17 missions in the tail turret. They called him “Boots” Scofield because one time when they were taking off, they hit the trees and crash-landed. He woke up, ran from the plane, and then realized he did not have his boots on anymore. That is what he was known as. Guess what? He believed in his democratic rights and he was at the NDP founding convention because he believed in different things.

Many other people from my community have gone to war, to Afghanistan most recently, but all the way back to the War of 1812. We have personally been touched by this ourselves.

I reject at all times the insinuation, especially from a senior Liberal cabinet minister, that we do not support our veterans whether we are NDP, Liberal, or Conservative, just because we disagree on an issue. That is not going to be the case on our watch here. Our veterans are offended when they are put in that perspective.

This budget bill is going to cause a lot of significant problems.

I want to touch on a couple of things that are dear to my local community. The first is, most importantly, what we see taking place with the Gordie Howe International Bridge. It was in Conservative budgets previously. They are now approximately six months behind in the request for proposals for the consortiums that would build the bridge. They are blaming incompetence, mismanagement, and all those things, but at the same time, they are now the decision-makers. I am really concerned what message is being sent to industry and others about Canadian manufacturing, agriculture, and other types of investments that are very important to the busiest border crossing in North America. Basically, in my riding, 35% of our daily trade with the United States takes place every single day along two kilometres of our border. Very often Parliament has been united in getting this new border facility done, but we have not seen advancement for the RFPs.

We fought a lot for innovation, especially for manufacturing and other types of work. AUTO21 is one of those things. It's a network for excellence. It is being sunsetted and is not going to get the funding, despite bringing in over $1 billion of value-added revenue for innovation and financing from other institutions and also jobs for Canadians,. Basically, from 2001 to 2015, it has received funding of around $81 million but received about $70 million in actual net benefit derivatives directly attributed to it, plus $1 billion for the secondary work that is done. What has it done? Two thousand four hundred student researchers are trained. There are some 685 industry and public sector partners, 500 researchers across Canada, 200 research and technology transfer projects. Some 48 academic institutions evolved. There have been 6,700 publications and reports, 320 patents, licences, and commercialization agreements, and $141 million invested in auto research alone from this institution.

Unfortuntely, AUTO21 is being run into the ground because of an ideology set up by a previous administration which said that after 14 years and despite all of the building, it is done.

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

Mr. Speaker, having sat through that speech, I think what the member wants beyond reinvesting in the auto fund is to speed up the RFP for the bridge. What date would he like the RFP issued by?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Today, Mr. Speaker, because it was due six months ago.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the elements that the Liberals have purported throughout this whole budget process, in fact since they took office, is a reduction in the middle-class tax rate. I would call it, and I think others on this side of the House would agree, a middle tax fraud. It is a shell game. What the Liberals give, the Liberals certainly take away.

I am wondering if the hon. member could comment on how he feels the Liberal middle tax fraud is working.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

It is fraudulent, Mr. Speaker. That is how it is working. The reality is that we have a situation to correct the balance and protect those individuals who need disposable income to maintain their homes or to make sure their kids get an education. For some people it is the ability to get prescription drugs and other types of necessary medicine in order to have a healthy lifestyle so they can be productive in Canadian society, whether it be working, volunteering, or helping in their communities.

It is difficult to accept these allotments that are taking place and not be compelled to speak out that they are going to the wrong people. We should be rebuilding the middle class while we can.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague to comment on the budget bill being a showcase of election campaign fiction and a showcase of broken promises. Perhaps he could hone in on the issue of tax loopholes and small businesses, the gems of opportunities which the budget is epically failing.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a specific example of an election broken promise is that Liberals in my area promised that my single events sports betting bill, Bill C-221, would be put in the budget. It would become a regulated industry under my bill and would allow money to be shifted away from organized crime. It would provide jobs and new revenue sources for the government in terms of accountable funds. My bill is still out there. It could have been put in the budget. That was a promise made by the Liberals during the campaign.

Many of the economic studies that have been done related to this have shown that it would benefit small business. The redistribution of those funds from organized crime would affect tourism in a positive way, economic development through the management aspect with regard to single events sports betting, and also protect our billions of dollars' worth of infrastructure from the United States. That would take that industry allocation out of the equation. It would also provide desperately needed resources for public expenditures and investment opportunities. It would provide a revenue stream for those who have gaming problems.

We have all of that versus allowing $10 billion going to organized crime and its associations per year, and another $4 billion offshore that they do want to have a regulated environment that is not coming back at all and is not accountable. That is one specific example that would affect all of us in a positive way and it would reduce the revenue that organized crime depends upon every single day.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères has about four minutes before we move to the vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, since I have just four minutes, I will try to be brief.

I want to start by saying that the Bloc Québécois will not support Bill C-15. This is probably not a surprise to the government, since we have already expressed our opposition to the bill for many reasons, which I will try to summarize.

Before I talk about the negatives, I do want to mention that the budget does have some positive points. For example, the money invested in infrastructure is positive, but we still do not know how the investments will be made. Will an agreement be signed with the Government of Quebec, and will it be signed fast enough for the Government of Quebec and businesses to benefit? We have some serious questions about this.

Another measure I want to highlight is the return of tax credits for labour-sponsored funds. This savings tool is very important and worthwhile for middle-class Quebeckers.

There is also the universal child care benefit, which will be non-taxable from now on. The government is also combining all of the old benefits because they were so confusing. That is very positive. Unfortunately, however, they did not take the opportunity to eliminate the taxation of enhanced benefits imposed by the Conservatives. That could have been done.

I also want to mention the middle-class tax cut, which is not actually going to help the real middle class, just the upper middle class. Those are the people who are doing relatively well financially but who might run into a few financial troubles. They are not the richest segment of the population, so cutting their taxes is not a bad thing, but the government did not cut taxes for the right people.

There are some things that we strongly condemn, such as the fact that health transfers to the Government of Quebec and the provinces will be indexed at just 3% per year even though we all know that health care costs go up by 5% to 6% per year. That represents an $800-million shortfall for the Government of Quebec, and once again, the federal government will benefit from that shortfall.

We could also talk about the changes, and the lack of changes, to the employment insurance fund. We have been fighting for over 20 years to get the government to stop dipping into the EI surplus. Yet again, however, it plans to take $1.7 billion from the EI fund for the 2014-15 fiscal year.

Using money that belongs to workers to top up the government's coffers is unacceptable, especially given that not everyone pays into the program. After a certain income level, people no longer contribute. Money that belongs to the workers should serve the workers.

There is one piece of good news regarding employment insurance: new measures will increase the potential number of weeks of benefits to 20 in certain regions that have seen a huge increase in unemployment numbers. However, the problem lies in the regions that were chosen. According to our information, the regions chosen are in the Northwest Territories, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland, and Nunavut.

I am not sure if my colleagues noticed, but Quebec was not included in that list. This is because the unemployment rate was already quite high in Quebec and it did not go up as much as in some other areas. Quebeckers are suffering just as much as everyone else, but they will not benefit from those improvements to EI.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 5:45 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 second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.