House of Commons Hansard #51 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was rcmp.

Topics

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

5:50 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Madam Speaker, certainly with respect to the economy and the Green Energy Act that we have in Ontario, blissfully, the member is from a province that has not experienced what we have in Ontario, such as putting up wind turbine farms and generating more electricity than Ontario can possibly use, to the point where it is selling it to the United States at a discounted cost. It is costing Ontario consumers more to generate electricity that is provided to our competitors at a lower cost.

I am very proud that when we experienced the economic world financial distress, the worst economic depression since the Great Depression, our government forged ahead, and by the time the 2015 election came we were in a surplus situation. Even by the end of the financial year, with all of the billions that were spent by the new government after election day, we still remained in a surplus.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON

Madam Speaker, let me also offer, as my colleagues have, my thoughts and prayers for the residents and community of Fort McMurray, Alberta.

It is an honour to rise in this House today to speak on our government's first budget bill, Bill C-15, on behalf of my community of Pickering Uxbridge.

I am very proud to support budget 2016, because this is a budget that is making investments in Canada and Canadians. The investments outlined in budget 2016 focus on growing the economy and ensuring that we are making decisions that not only help Canadians in the short and medium term, but with a focus on also securing long-term growth for future generations.

After 10 years of working on budgets at the municipal level, I can proudly say that, not only is this a budget for middle class and working Canadians, it is a budget that finally provides support for cities and towns across the country.

Our immediate infrastructure investment of $11.9 billion will build roads, improve waste water facilities, and ensure that municipalities are ready to withstand the new challenges that climate change present. These investments will create tens of thousands of jobs, boost the economy, and send a strong message to municipalities that after a decade of having their issues and priorities ignored, they have a strong partner in this federal government.

Budget 2016 delivers on so many areas that will help our communities and residents. As a community with a high number of young families, the new Canada child benefit will help thousands of my constituents back home, and millions of Canadians across the country, with the high and rising costs of raising a family. The CCB will provide more money, is tax free, and income based. This is important because it means more money for families that really need the help.

Budget 2016 will also invest in social infrastructure projects, which include child care centres that will improve access to high-quality child care spaces for Canadians. In my region, this investment is critical, as we have thousands of residents on waiting lists for child care. Investments in this type of infrastructure is long overdue.

Budget 2016 is also better at weaving rural Canada into our shared economy. Our government is making a $500-million investment to bring in high-speed Internet to rural communities like Uxbridge and north Pickering.

We know that in our ever globalized economy, reliable Internet service is critical to every business, and that includes farming. A broken piece of equipment, like an alternator or a propeller shaft, could shut down production and cause economic losses. However, with reliable, high-speed Internet access, those losses can be minimized, as acquiring that new part could be as easy as one click away.

A stable Internet connection is needed not only for businesses in our rural communities, but it is critical to our everyday lives, from paying bills online to students doing homework assignments, or someone applying for a new job. We often take for granted how much our daily lives rely on the Internet. For rural communities, this lack of a reliable connection can mean missed business opportunities or time away from family.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Finance, we heard testimony last week from representatives of KPMG, as well as Commissioner Treusch of the Canada Revenue Agency, in regard to the Isle of Man tax avoidance scheme. I am proud that budget 2016 is making a historic investment, of over $440 million, to the CRA to combat such tax evasion and avoidance schemes. Testimony last week in committee showed why that investment is so important.

During Mr. Treusch's testimony, while referring to the previous decade under the last government, he stated that “Obviously, we have come through a period of considerable fiscal restraint, but during that period, we redeployed as best we could..”.

This period of considerable restraint is highlighted in a November 16, 2012 press release from the Treasury Board, which said that nearly 3,000 jobs were eliminated under the former government. In the 2013 budget, there was $259 million, over five years, of cuts from the CRA.

I am sure we have all heard the horror stories from constituents who needed some questions answered but had to wait months for a response. It is no wonder that the service levels suffered, with such massive cuts. This also affected the CRA's ability to go after tax avoidance schemes, like the Isle of Man program offered by KPMG.

In October 2010, an internal audit by Canada Revenue Agency expressed concerns that:

Cases that could potentially represent significant criminal non-compliance can be rejected by a specific TSO enforcement group because of limited resources.... ...offices are choosing smaller cases of a lower dollar value that do not necessarily represent the greatest risk.... This supports the observations by some program staff that offices are choosing smaller cases that represent “quick hits”.

I believe these budget pressures from the previous government led to an unfair enforcement system, where Canadians owing money who happened to be wealthy and could afford accountants and lawyers were less likely to be pursued than those Canadians who owed much smaller amounts but were viewed as easy to collect from because they could not hire lawyers or professionals to work on their behalf with CRA. I think we can all agree on both sides of this House that every Canadian needs to pay his or her fair share in taxes, and that the choices CRA makes in enforcing these collections should not be determined by who can pay the litigator. However, the CRA can only operate in a fair manner if it has the tools and resources to do so. This is why I fully support the investment in budget 2016 that would provide these tools and resources to the CRA.

Speaking about this investment, Commissioner Treusch stated:

The new budget gives us an enormous reinvestment that will be a return for the Crown and will...move us forward in addressing the concern that I know Canadians have...

After all, the unpaid taxes that are owed are a loss to all Canadians, as it means lost revenue to invest in things that would strengthen our economy, like infrastructure and transit improvements, as well as innovative health care research.

Budget 2016 would also ensure that seniors are able to retire with financial security. This includes providing increased benefits that would allow more seniors in Pickering and Uxbridge to have a dignified, comfortable, and secure retirement. This budget would follow through on a number of commitments we made to seniors during the last election. We promised to roll back the age at which seniors can access their OAS and GIS from 67 to 65, and we have delivered on that pledge. Our government also recognized the importance of ensuring seniors have access to high-quality affordable housing. That is why we would boost funds for construction, repair, and adaptation of affordable housing for seniors across the country. Canadians work hard their entire lives with the expectation that they will retire in comfort and security. I am proud to say that budget 2016 would make that goal a reality for thousands more seniors.

Although my riding of Pickering—Uxbridge does not have a large indigenous population, the investments in budget 2016 regarding this issue are important to all communities. We are all aware of the living conditions some of our indigenous populations face, and it is outrageous that some communities do not have access to clean drinking water. I am proud that this budget would invest $2.2 billion in clean-water infrastructure to finally end on-reserve boil-water advisories. This is on top of other investments, including $2.6 billion that would boost first nations K-12 education, and $40 million to ensure that an inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women and children is as comprehensive and thorough as possible.

I recognize that this budget would not fix all the wrongs of the past, but as a parliamentarian and as a Canadian, I am proud that we have a Prime Minister who is deeply committed to ensuring a better future for indigenous peoples and fostering better relationships, nation to nation. To be part of a government focused on bettering the lives of our indigenous populations is extremely meaningful to me. Budget 2016 and, by extension, Bill C-15 would fulfill the commitments we made to Canadians. This is why I am so proud to rise today in this House on behalf of my constituents to lend it my support.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

6 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

The government House leader is rising on a point of order.

Bill C-15—Notice of time allocation motionBudget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

6 p.m.

Beauséjour New Brunswick

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I know colleagues were impressed with my colleague from Pickering—Uxbridge's speech and will want to make positive comments and ask questions. However, before we get to that I would like to advise that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-15, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Bill C-7—Notice of Time AllocationPublic Service Labour Relations ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Beauséjour New Brunswick

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and third reading of Bill C-7, an act to amend the Public Service Labour Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and other acts and to provide for certain other measures.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Business of the HouseGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Beauséjour New Brunswick

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, I would like to inform the House that because we could not arrive at a conclusion to Bill C-15, the supply day designated for tomorrow, Tuesday, May 10, unfortunately has to be redesignated to Friday, May 13.

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

6:05 p.m.

Conservative

Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB

Madam Speaker, I want to clear up something about the CRA. The biggest drop and the lowest number of CRA employees in the last 15 years came under the Liberal government of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin many years back. They slashed it 24% in the last two years of their mandate.

The budget is full of broken promises with the biggest one being a promise of $3 billion added for at-home health care, which was regurgitated as $3 billion for palliative care. This came up during the debate that ended in closure for the assisted suicide legislation.

Where is this money? The Liberals promised it in the election. They promised it during the debate on assisted dying. Could the member please tell me where this money is?

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON

Madam Speaker, this government is doing things differently than the previous government in that we work with the provinces and we respect their jurisdiction.

Our minister has been clear—

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

6:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON

Madam Speaker, if members are interested in the answer I am providing it.

Our minister has been clear that she is working with the provinces to uphold the health accord and make improvements. Our government is committed to that. It is important to all Canadians.

Unlike the previous government, we do not impose our will on other jurisdictions. We work with people.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

6:05 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I want to remind individuals here in the House that if they want to ask a question to please stand up as opposed to yelling the questions or yelling across the way.

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

6:05 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Madam Speaker, never accuse Liberals of not having any sense of irony. I just heard my friend say that the Liberals are proud that they never impose their will just minutes after their House leader stood in his place to shut down debate, not on one bill but on two bills that have been introduced. He suggested that because opposition House leaders could not get along he was going to punish the Conservatives with one of their opposition days and stick it on a Friday, which is a short day. No, the Liberals do not impose their will.

What is more ironic is that when the House leader for the Liberals stood up to do this, the Liberals actually cheered and laughed. They found it funny that they were shutting down debate on Bill C-15 and Bill C-7, which precludes future negotiations with the RCMP allowing RCMP members to talk about things like sexual harassment. That is what the Liberals just did.

With respect to this procedure that we just saw introduced, the member said she was proud to be part of a government that at just this moment invoked a form of closure that will come tomorrow. Is she proud of this? That is exactly what the Liberals campaigned against seven months ago when the Conservatives were doing it.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON

Madam Speaker, very clearly, I am proud of my government. In fact, we were elected in October to deliver legislation. If my hon. colleagues wish to hold up the government and make every effort to not work with us when it comes to the appropriate amount of time for debate, at the end of the day, we were elected to bring forward legislation, and that is exactly what we intend to do.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

6:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

6:05 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Once again, I would just ask members to please respect others who are speaking.

I have time for a very brief question. The hon. member for London North Centre.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON

Madam Speaker, on the matter of pride, I am extremely proud to have a colleague who has served in local government and has served her community proudly.

I would ask my hon. colleague if she could comment on infrastructure and the investments our government is making in infrastructure, and how they will help municipalities.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

6:10 p.m.

Liberal

Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON

Madam Speaker, at the end of the day, there is only one taxpayer. By investing in infrastructure, that is going to help municipalities, and the taxpayers will pay lower taxes. This will benefit small businesses and the community at large.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

6:10 p.m.

NDP

Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC

Madam Speaker, six or seven months ago, we were all busy campaigning, and the Liberal candidates were visiting all of the ridings with suitcases full of promises. Then, in the throne speech, they tried to give us what seemed like a wide range of measures.

In the budget, the next step, they started being more specific and they realized that they would likely be unable to keep all of their promises or even most of them. As a result, today, we find ourselves dealing with what is quite frankly a rather sad budget implementation bill. What makes the whole situation even sadder is that we have just learned, this minute, that time allocation will once again be imposed on the House. I am having an increasingly difficult time distinguishing between the Conservatives and the Liberals. Good God. If only we could go back to the polls, but I know that that is not going to happen any time soon. In the meantime, I would like to make a few comments about this budget implementation bill.

Not everything about the budget implementation bill is bad. The Liberals are taking the Conservatives' usual approach, and so once again I am having a hard time distinguishing between them. The Liberals introduced an omnibus bill that forces us to vote either yes or no. There is not really any other name for this sort of bill. I would like to give an example of one of the dilemmas I am facing, which will ultimately force me to vote against this bill.

Let us talk about employment insurance, for example. I fully support getting rid of the old 910-hour eligibility requirement for new workers eligible for employment insurance benefits. However, considering that fewer than four out of 10 workers who have contributed to the plan end up being eligible when disaster strikes, such an insubstantial measure is just not enough. I am also disappointed that there is nothing in the budget, the implementation bill, or even the Liberal promises about the universal 360-hour threshold that all stakeholders have called for. The Liberals seem to be taking a piecemeal approach by scattering bits of funding here and there to give people the impression that everyone is going to be happy. Most likely, nobody will be happy.

Seniors are a particularly important segment of the population in Trois-Rivières because the proportion of people over the age of 65 there is significantly higher than in Quebec ridings as a whole. When it comes to seniors, I can say that enhancing the guaranteed income supplement has my full support. However, strangely, even though this measure should be a priority, it will only come into effect on July 1 of next year, which is a bit late considering that seniors' needs have been pressing for quite some time now.

If the government truly believes that the solution is to improve the guaranteed income supplement, restore the age of eligibility for old age security to 65 from 67, and maintain income splitting for seniors, then it must also work with the provinces to improve the Quebec pension plan and the Canada pension plan.

According to a recent Broadbent Institute study, the programs designed to provide some relief for vulnerable seniors are woefully inadequate. To combat marginalization and poverty among single seniors, the guaranteed income supplement needs to be increased by more than 10%.

As in many regions in Quebec, the populations in Mauricie and Trois-Rivières are aging. According to a projection by the City of Trois-Rivières, by 2031, the number of seniors will increase by 52.2%, which means that there will be 23,469 people aged 65 and over. The median income, not the average income, of seniors in Trois-Rivières is estimated at $18,702. Needless to say, the tax cuts promised and implemented by the Liberal government will do nothing for them. Statistics aside, during my term, I came to meet with hundreds of seniors and I witnessed for myself how vulnerable many of them are.

We could also talk about the promise made regarding Canada Post, which was fulfilled late or only partially fulfilled. Postal service was supposed to restored in certain areas that were considered among the most important ones. All of that is on hold, waiting for the findings of a task force that was just created.

Once again, not only did a great deal of time pass after the election campaign before the promise was kept, but the promise itself was watered down. Given the Machiavellian choices the Liberals want to impose on us, there can be only one clear answer when the time comes to vote: a resounding no.

Furthermore, except for a few miserly measures, this budget does nothing to help the pyrrhotite victims or Canadian workers, and it will hurt our regional economies, especially in the Trois-Rivières area.

Although I applauded the appointment of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance as the government spokesperson for the pyrrhotite file, I must admit that the disappointment I feel today is just as deep as that of the victims. Let us be clear: the final offer is $10 million a year for three years.

During the election campaign, the Prime Minister, a candidate at the time, told us that the Liberals understood the human and financial plight of Mauricie families, who account for roughly 4,000 homes. He later said that the Liberals' final offer was $10 million a year for three years, for a total of $30 million. We might hope to support approximately 75 victims a year, or 225 by the end of the term. What about the thousands of others? The answer is simple: the government is shirking its responsibility.

Clearly the Liberals are truly out of touch with the human and financial distress that the families in Mauricie are experiencing daily. For five years, the NDP has been calling on the federal government to acknowledge its share of responsibility, and after four and a half years of categorical refusal by the Conservatives, the Liberals are going a step further and contradicting themselves.

Here are some examples that are very clear and very easy to understand. The Liberal member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain recently said that pyrrhotite was a provincial concern. We have heard that one before.

However, a few weeks after the election, he said the exact opposite. I quote: “We will help the victims because human misery knows no borders or jurisdictions.”

How can we trust a politician who changes his mind like he changes his clothes? Therefore, I will continue to point out the contradictions in the positions of the Liberal member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain and his government.

SMEs are the economic heart of all of Canada's regions, including the Trois-Rivières and Quebec City areas. After promising SMEs that they would reduce their tax rate, the Liberals are breaking their promise. However, this government is keeping its costly and unnecessary subsidies for its friends, the big banks and major corporations.

Is the Liberals' disdain for SMEs really surprising? After stating that small businesses are tax shelters for the wealthiest Canadians who want to pay less taxes, the Prime Minister could also have added that that also holds true for large corporations such as Bionest in my region, which approved payments to a shareholder through a tax haven.

The current Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, who sat on Bionest's board of directors, approved these legal but, to say the least, questionable practices. There is more to come.

In my region, SMEs are vital to job creation. I would have liked to talk about a small business in my riding, Innovations Voltflex. Unfortunately, I do not have enough time left to speak to such a broad topic.

I hope to have the opportunity to continue during questions and answers.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

6:20 p.m.

Waterloo Ontario

Liberal

Bardish Chagger LiberalMinister of Small Business and Tourism

Madam Speaker, I rise to take this moment to talk about small businesses.

I hear a lot of points being raised when it comes to our job creators. We know that we support our small and medium-sized business owners.

Do the investments in budget 2016, the $11.9 billion in infrastructure that we are hearing about, actually support and benefit our small business owners? The $500 million in broadband, for rural and remote areas, to allow them to be competitive; the $800 million for innovation; the $50 million to the industrial research assistance program; the $50 million to Destination Canada; and the list goes on: do these investments support our small and medium-sized businesses?

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

6:20 p.m.

NDP

Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC

Madam Speaker, the fact that Internet infrastructure is included in the measures to help SMEs shows how little the government understands their immediate needs. Of course that is important, but it will not directly help SMEs balance their budgets. I would also like to quickly mention that a study conducted by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business indicated that one-third of small business owners earn less than $33,000 a year. That means that even the tax cuts and other measures for the middle class will not affect small business owners and will not support that industry.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

6:20 p.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Trois-Rivières for his excellent speech. He still had more to say, but he was not able to do so.

Every budget is a matter of choice. I would like to talk about one of the choices that the Liberals did not make, and that is the choice to seriously address the problem of tax evasion and tax havens. We have a Liberal government that regularly pats itself on the back in the House by saying that it is investing money in the Canada Revenue Agency to uncover fraud.

What the Liberal government never says, however, is that all the bilateral agreements that Canada has with tax havens are still in effect. That means that most tax avoidance and tax evasion is not committed by fraudsters but by people who are backed by laws and protected by the Liberal government.

Does my colleague think that the government should seriously tackle this problem and put an end to the bilateral agreements that Canada has with tax havens?

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

6:20 p.m.

NDP

Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his extremely relevant question, which essentially answered itself. The answer is in the question, but if I could take it one step further, I would bet that we will soon hear the government telling us that this is a virtually impossible situation, that we need to look at it from an international perspective, and that every country would have to be on the same page.

For every country to agree, we need a leader, and we do not seem to have found one yet.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

6:20 p.m.

Liberal

David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to know whether the member for Trois-Rivières, who spoke about the importance of keeping promises, which I am proud to tell him is what we are doing, still agrees with his party's position that governments should not run deficits and that austerity is the solution to our economic problems.

NDP members talk about their ideal and about their idealistic promises, which are not right, left, or forward. Their promises are nothing but dreams and symbolic gestures, but at the end of the day, they promised austerity, which does not work. It involves telling the most vulnerable that they must do more with less and that they must not invest. They are talking about what they will do in five or ten years and hope that their policies will have perhaps helped us.

Does the member still stand by his promise of austerity, or is that a broken NDP promise?

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

6:25 p.m.

NDP

Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC

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

I understand where he is coming from because, during his election campaign, he had to focus on his platform and never read ours. We never said anything about austerity. We talked about balancing the budget for one very good reason that he forgot to mention, unfortunately: in the NDP's budget, our revenue column included new revenue sources that the Liberal government would never dare contemplate, such as getting big corporations to pay their fair share of taxes.

Our plan was to raise taxes on big corporations by a few points, which would have covered the cost of our promises.