House of Commons Hansard #50 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.

Topics

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is that agreed?

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Question No. 84Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC

With regard to Canada's delegation at the United Nations Conference on Climate Change (COP21): (a) what is the first and last name of each delegate; (b) which organization did each delegate represent; (c) what is the total cost for using government aircraft to transport delegates to and from Paris; and (d) broken down by each delegate who stayed in Paris, for how many days and on which dates did the government cover costs?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Finally, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand at this time.

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is that agreed?

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Industry, Science and TechnologyCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among all the parties and if you seek it, I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion.

I move:

That, in relation to its study of the Manufacturing Sector, 10 members of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology be authorized to travel to Mirabel and Montreal, Quebec, in the Spring of 2016, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

When the House last considered this question, the hon. member for Ottawa South had five minutes remaining in the time for his comments.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Ottawa South.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise again for a few minutes to provide some comments about the important budget we brought down in the country recently.

When I last left off, I was speaking about the need for countries to make investments in learning. In fact, I argue, still argue, have always argued, that the most important investment any country can make is in learning.

I was talking about some of the changes in the budget that dealt with modest and low-income students from families of modest and low-income backgrounds, and the assistance we are providing to help them reach up and break through. We know the single greatest determinant for post-secondary learning of one form or another is whether or not a young person's parents went on past high school.

We are obviously working in lockstep with many of our provincial counterparts. For example, in the province of Ontario, my home province, the government there recently, in its wisdom, decided to cut tuition fees by 50% for families with collective incomes of $150,000 a year or less. That is a major contribution to making post-secondary education more affordable. Again, in this party and this government, we recognize that learning is paramount if we are going to succeed and continue to succeed in a global economy that is in rapid transition.

A few of the themes I want to talk about that I think are deserving of being addressed are the following. First is seniors. With an aging and rapidly aging population, our government has recognized the need to invest there as well. This is why we have increased the guaranteed income supplement, for example, up to $947 a year for single seniors. That is income tested, of course.

We are making huge and new investments in retirement, particularly when it comes to infrastructure related to seniors and seniors' housing. It is very important with an aging population. We maintained, of course, pension splitting to help so many senior couples meet the daily challenges of paying bills and staying afloat, living independently and with dignity.

We are working towards enhancing the Canada pension plan. We are working in conjunction with our provincial counterparts, again, co-operating there to try to lift more Canadians going forward to ensure that we do not deal with some of the pension challenges we are facing now in all of our ridings. All of us here have knocked on doors where we face many hundreds, if not thousands of families and individuals who are rightly worried about their retirement and whether they will be able to afford to live with that independence and the dignity I spoke about a moment ago.

We have also restored the eligibility age for the OAS, taking it rightfully, in my view, back to 65 years old from the arbitrary age of 67, a measure brought in by the last government without a single shred of evidence to substantiate the need to do so.

I want to touch upon a few issues. This is an issue that has great bearing on our national capital region. I happen to have the pleasure and the privilege of being chair of the national capital region caucus for the government, embracing some 16 electoral districts and 12 MPs.

We have invested heavily in our national museums. This is an important part of Canada's cultural identity. It is an important part of Canada's future going forward. We have, of course, invested in rail safety. I am also very proud of the work going on right now, led by our Minister of Health in backfilling our national health accord.

We are investing heavily in innovative and new clean economy measures, so that we are the most efficient economy in the world and the cleanest economy in the world.

Last, I would remind Canadians of the $120 billion over 10 years going into major infrastructure projects, projects that are determined with our local municipal partners and provinces, projects that are ready to go and will have a direct bearing on our quality of life, and of course create that growth that we have not seen in roughly a decade, leveraging money from both provinces and municipalities to enhance our lifestyle, our quality of life, and to create more jobs.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

12:20 p.m.

Conservative

Kellie Leitch Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that the member did not touch on was the specific decision by the government to eliminate the children's fitness tax credit.

This was a tax credit created that benefited every Canadian child, not just nine out of 10 Canadian children, but actually every child in my riding and every child across the country. It is something that was shown, with evidence, to augment the opportunities for children to be fitter and healthier, and obviously decrease the obesity rate in the country.

I would like to ask the member why the Liberal government, why his government, why he has chosen to eliminate the children's fitness tax credit?

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleague that budgets are about choices. They are about allocating scarce resources. In its wisdom, our government decided to eliminate a small number of tax measures in order to bring in a much more generous Canada child benefit. Families making anywhere from $30,000 to $90,000 a year in gross income will see major increases in the support they will get for their children.

The difference between our support and the previous government's support for children through our Canada child benefit is that it is tax free. Therefore, it will be a major increase in available income to support children through sports, homework, clothing, backpacks, school supplies, food, and all of the things that will really help so many kids. That is why I said earlier that we are very proud of these investments because they will help lift hundreds of thousands of kids out of poverty.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

12:20 p.m.

NDP

Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC

Mr. Speaker, I know when I was walking among many communities in my riding and knocking on doors, one of the things that my constituents spoke to me about again and again was their serious concerns about omnibus bills filled with lots of information that was not adequately debated in the House of Commons.

We now have another one. It is 179 pages long, contains 30 separate statutes, refers to nine different ministries, impacts several others, and contains Bill C-12, which is already on the Order Paper before the House of Commons.

The people in my riding are concerned. How would you respond to them?

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how you would respond to these concerns. However, our government is responding to these concerns by making absolutely sure that this debate is fulsome, that it continues, and that we talk about the very details that the member highlights. This budget will be taken back to the finance committee where we will be hearing from dozens of witnesses on the specifics and the merits of all of these provisions. It is all there in the light of day. It is all transparent. People can raise issues and concerns with their MPs.

I invite the member, if she has any specific concerns on behalf of her constituents on any of these measures, to approach either the relevant minister, the Minister of Finance, or any of her parliamentary colleagues on this side of the House.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

12:25 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague could speak to the genuine investments that will be made into Canada's infrastructure, and what this budget will do in terms of helping to build a stronger, healthier Canada through infrastructure spending. I know that he is very familiar with the file, and I thought that he could provide some comment on how important it is to invest in infrastructure.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

Mr. Speaker, infrastructure is foundational to our ability to compete.

We will be having a debate in this House shortly about a particular motion brought by a colleague with respect to imposing some, if I can call it, green conditionality to backstop our infrastructure spending. We have a chance in this country to lead a race. The race is all about becoming the most efficient economy in the world. The German authorities know it, the American government knows it, and the Israeli government knows it. We're embroiled in a race, and our infrastructure investments are critical to making sure that we can compete, particularly as a rapidly urbanizing country, which Canada is, alongside for that matter pretty much every other nation-state in the world.

We have a real opportunity to invest in the foundational infrastructure that we need: light rail, housing, support for our seniors, and water and waste water systems. These assets are the pillars, the foundation, upon which we build. They provide us the support to go on, for example, to conquer global markets. Just yesterday I had the privilege of announcing a $525,000 grant for a major company located in my riding. It is doing incredible software and hardware work around the world with respect to hotel management systems.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Before resuming debate, I would like to inform hon. members that there have been more than five hours of debate on this motion during this first round. Consequently, the maximum time allocated for all subsequent interventions shall be ten minutes for speeches and five minutes for questions and comments.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Simcoe—Grey.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Kellie Leitch Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I would like to express my deepest sympathies to the thousands of families who have lost their homes and businesses and are currently displaced from Fort McMurray, Alberta. Our thoughts and prayers are with them. I ask all Canadians to support the relief efforts by the Red Cross at www.redcross.ca. It is at these times when I think Canadians' generosity and our Canadian unity are exemplified. The people of Fort McMurray are resilient, and I know they will rebuild. I want to thank the Government of Canada and the Government of Alberta for offering their matching dollars in the time of need for these Canadians. As I say, this is the time when we see Canadian generosity and Canadian unity truly exemplified.

I rise in the House today to speak about an important issue for the the people of Simcoe—Grey. The budget of the Government of Canada is the centrepiece of the government's agenda and policies. With the new Liberal government, this budget represents a sharp contrast between the Liberal promises and the day-to-day reality of Canadians.

During the election, there were many commitments made, and promises that were made along the way. However, the reality of this budget, and most important its impact on Canadians, leaves many of us quite baffled.

Election campaigns, parliamentary debates, selfies, and state dinners are one thing, but this budget is another. This budget will have a significant negative impact on the lives of Canadians. The Liberals are spending freely, borrowing billions of dollars, and taking benefits away from families and small businesses. In short, the Liberals are jeopardizing our future.

On March 22, the Liberals announced their budget. They are now borrowing and spending over $29.4 billion while they have eliminated benefits to families, students, and small businesses. This is simply not responsible, and at some point in time someone will be paying for all this. Quite frankly, whether it is us today or the next several generations of Canadians, someone will have to pay off this debt.

Why we as Conservatives actually care about this borrowing and spending and the creation of this debt is that, for us, lowering taxes, balancing budgets, and having less debt, the type of government that we ran, is not an end in itself but rather a means to a greater end. The end is more freedom and prosperity for Canadians overall. It is more freedom to support programs that helped our veterans and seniors, like the tax-free savings account; to support programs that supported students and young Canadians; and to support small-business owners to harness their entrepreneurial spirit and the great opportunities to help grow their communities. We believe in hard work on this side of the House, and we also believe that hard work should be rewarded.

When we are free, we have an ability to provide for others. When we are free from taxation and free from a burden of debt, which the current government will create, we are able to go out and help others. Helping others at home and abroad is what unifies us as Canadians. Our Canadian history is rooted in that generosity for individuals. It is this Canadian identity that we must work hard to preserve, particularly as we debate this important piece of legislation.

I can say in contrast that the current Liberal government is not focused on that. The current Liberal government is not focused on reducing that burden on Canadians. The current Liberal government is actually mortgaging the future of our nation.

I have always been concerned about children. I am therefore disappointed in the government's decision to eliminate the children's fitness tax credit. This decision means that Canadian families will have less money in their pockets.

In 2006, I was asked by the federal Conservative government to chair a panel on the children's fitness tax credit, to make recommendations on how to improve the health and physical fitness of Canadian kids. The tax credit encouraged families to help their kids become more physically active, actually having a direct impact on reducing the obesity rates of Canadian kids. I am exceptionally disappointed that the current government would decide to get rid of an initiative that improved the health of Canadian children, one that impacted all Canadian kids. That is not just 9 out of ten Canadian kids, as the Liberals like to speak about, with their benefits being for 9 out of ten Canadian families, but every Canadian child.

For me, this is exceptionally important. They have eliminated the children's arts tax credit, income splitting, the textbooks tax credit, the education tax credit, and the small business tax credit.

For small business owners, saying that they are tax avoiders is simply wrong. In my riding of Simcoe—Grey, the small business people go out and work hard so they can give back to our communities generously. Whether that be Charlie Tatham or Simon Ainley or Chris Crozier, they have all built our communities in my riding.

In addition, the Liberals have not focused on Canadian farmers. In my riding, it is important. They feed our Canadian families.

Finally, with regard to Canadian Forces Base Borden, another decade of darkness will be faced, with the reduction of $3.7 billion in defence spending.

Canadians deserve better. We actually have an opportunity to do better. I encourage individuals to review the bill and vote against it, because it is not in the best interests of Canadians.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member is actually serious when she says that the Conservatives left us with less debt than when they arrived. That is one of the more entertaining comments I have heard so far today.

The Conservatives have not managed to balance a budget in over 130 or 140 years, after having entered office with a deficit. They have never taken us from deficit to surplus, not once since the 1900s. Last year, the government left us with a significant deficit, and it is getting worse. I would like to hear the opposition's explanation.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Kellie Leitch Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member opposite. The deficit is getting much worse. The government promised a $10-billion deficit, which I found quite concerning to begin with, but it is actually $29.4 billion.

Ours was a government that the parliamentary budget officer has already reported had us in the black. In fact, we were over $7 billion in the black, as reported in February. However, our now Liberal Minister of Finance says that is just a thing to consider.

Let us be serious. The Liberal government is mortgaging the future of Canadian families and the future of younger Canadians. I encourage them to think again and actually put young Canadians first.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

12:35 p.m.

NDP

Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

However, I have a question for her about the children's fitness tax credit. I agree with her that it is not a good thing that the Liberals are eliminating that tax credit without replacing it with another plan to encourage physical activity.

At the same time, I placed several written questions on the Order Paper about that tax credit in the previous Parliament to ask the Conservative government at the time whether it had studies to show that the tax credit had actually helped young people who were not already participating in sports to do so. Unfortunately, every time I asked the question, I was told that no such studies existed.

Can the member tell me on what grounds she is claiming that this tax credit actually encouraged young people, poor young people or those who were not already participating in sports, to do so?

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Kellie Leitch Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON

Mr. Speaker, actually there is data. I encourage him to go on PubMed and look it up. It shows that the implementation of these kinds of tax-free or positive incentives to have families and children participate show that more children participate. That is why it is so disappointing that the Liberal government has eliminated the children's fitness tax credit. Not only was it a tax credit for some families, but it was a subsidy for other families who were not eligible for a tax credit. Every Canadian child benefited from it.

I am happy to instruct the member that if he would like to look it up on PubMed, there are several articles published on this. However, let us be frank. This is actually about Canadian kids and the Liberal government abandoning them at a time when they need encouragement to get out there and play, to get on the playground. We know that is good for Canadian children's health.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC

Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a bit of a contradiction in the Conservative's approach. We have heard from time to time, on other matters, that parents should be left to decide for themselves how to spend their money. That was the argument they had against any kind of mandated child care. Certainly, one would have to agree that the Canada child benefit, by replacing all of these very directive boutique tax cuts, in fact does precisely that. Not only that, it does it tax free, and it puts more money in the pockets of Canadians.

Therefore, given that people could use the Canada child benefit to replace all of these boutique tax cuts, would the hon. member not agree that families are actually better off with more flexibility and more money in their pockets?

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Kellie Leitch Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON

Mr. Speaker, I guess what I have issue with is that our initiatives actually impacted every Canadian family and every Canadian child. As the Liberals will say again and again themselves, only 9 out of ten actually benefit from what they are doing.

As my colleague earlier mentioned, one can be in a family, maybe a nurse or a teacher, and these individuals do not even benefit from what the Liberal government is doing now.

What our party focused on was making sure that every single Canadian family benefited. Every single Canadian family had more money back in their pockets, as opposed to what the Liberal government is doing, which is augmenting our debt and deficit, taking that money out of their pockets and giving it to the Government of Canada.

I think Canadians should have that money back in their pockets so that they can make great decisions for their families.