Debates of June 6th, 2016

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the U.S. and Canada are totally different when it comes to universities and post-secondary education. Here in Canada, the average tuition rate is a lot cheaper than it is in the U.S. In my humble opinion, the study is not relevant to what government is doing in 2016.

The government ran on a commitment to invest in Canadians, specifically to make sure that our young Canadians have every opportunity to succeed. I know that in this country if one gets an opportunity to go to some of the phenomenal post-secondary education institutions that we have across the country, that one can achieve one's dreams. One can become a doctor, lawyer, or engineer.

However, to ensure that path happens for our young Canadians, we have to ensure that the infrastructure is there. We have to make sure that they are not riddled with debt. No student in this country should be making the decision of whether they should go to school or into the workforce based on the cost of tuition. The government should be investing in young Canadians, and that is what we are doing in budget 2016.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a pleasure working with the member for Brampton East on the government operations committee.

He spoke very eloquently about the need to invest in post-secondary education. The main way in which the federal government invests in post-secondary education is through the Canada social transfer.

I am struck by the fact that this budget provides no increase at all in the Canada social transfer relative to the last Conservative budget. We have had a number of good speeches today about post-secondary education, but when it comes to actually funding post-secondary institutions, unfortunately, the current government is not doing anything more than the previous government did.

Could the member for Brampton East tell us when his government will be coming forward with an increase in the Canada social transfer?

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to echo my hon. colleague's sentiments. It is an absolute honour and privilege to serve with him on the government operations committee.

I want to focus on the increases we are making to universities. We are directly investing through a post-secondary investment and research fund. The Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development is doing a phenomenal job, travelling the country, coast to coast to coast, speaking with the heads of universities to ensure they have access to this funding.

There are clear guidelines across the country to ensure that our post-secondary education institutions have the money to invest and to ensure that when young Canadians go to these institutions, they receive that high-quality education we are so used to in Canada. A lot of our hon. colleagues have had the opportunity and the benefit of getting good degrees and education from very good institutions.

It is our job and our requirement to ensure that future generations have the same opportunity we have had.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the report stage of Bill C-15, an act to implement provisions of the Liberal government's first budget, which was tabled earlier this year, on March 22.

I would like to thank the NDP finance critic, the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, for the incredible amount of work he has done on this and other files.

We have had a lot of debate in this place about the omnibus nature of Bill C-15. While the government claims that it is not an omnibus bill, New Democrats have pointed out many similarities between Bill C-15 and the omnibus budget bills we saw from previous Conservative governments. Bill C-15 is 179 pages long, amends over 30 different statutes, refers to nine different ministers, and impacts several others. It includes various retroactive changes in addition to a complex chapter on bank recapitalization. Clearly, the bill contains many more important elements that deserve proper study, which unfortunately it did not receive. Bill C-15 should have been split up so that changes to veterans benefits, employment insurance, and our banking system received proper study.

The NDP proposed amendments to fix and improve the bill at committee stage. We are also recommending changes at report stage, including a call for the government to fulfill its election commitment to small and medium-sized businesses. For many years, the NDP has called for a reduction in the small business tax rate from 11% to 9%. It is part of our vision for job creation. The Conservatives agreed with us in their last budget, and in the 2015 election all three parties, the NDP, Liberals, and Conservatives, pledged to reduce the tax rate to 9%. However, the Liberal budget misses the mark by only reducing the rate to 10.5%.

In my riding of Essex, small businesses create good local jobs and play an integral role in our communities. The Liberals' broken campaign pledge will cost small-business owners money and hurt their bottom lines.

There are several positive measures in Bill C-15 that I support. It would restore the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds. It would add feminine hygiene products to the list of zero-rated products for taxation purposes, an initiative that my colleague, the member for London—Fanshawe, worked tirelessly to advance. The bill would also eliminate the income splitting scheme, raise GIS rates for seniors, and repeal the Conservatives' legislation to raise the age of retirement from 65 to 67. All of these issues are important to the people of Essex I represent.

I am pleased to see that the budget fulfills the commitment to reopen nine Veterans Affairs offices closed by the Conservatives, including the Veterans Affairs office in Windsor. Make no mistake, none of these Veterans Affairs offices should have been closed in the first place. When people in Windsor—Essex learned of the imminent closures, they came together and raised their voices in protest. Their determination and hard work has no doubt led to the government's promise to reopen our veterans office. I will follow this file closely to ensure that it offers quality service for our veterans, including improved financial aid and mental health services.

On employment insurance, the Liberal government said repeatedly that it would reverse the unfair changes made by the Conservatives. These promises have, unfortunately, been significantly downgraded. It did not establish an equitable and universal eligibility threshold to put EI back on track and will not reduce the waiting period to one week until 2017.

Several months ago, the NDP introduced a motion proposing changes to EI that would truly improve access and increase benefits for those who need them most. I am disappointed to see that the Liberals voted against our plan. Instead, we see changes that will not achieve the strong EI system our country and its workers deserve.

I have met with many in our region who are deeply concerned about the future of Canada's auto sector, particularly in relation to the disharmonization that would be created by the trans-Pacific partnership. From the parts sector to the assembly line, where I used to work, people in Essex are worried about their jobs and the competitiveness of our industry.

The region of Essex, which I am so proud to represent, lost nearly 12,000 auto manufacturing jobs between 2001 and 2013. It is a trend that started under the previous Liberal government and continued under the Conservatives. We must tackle these worrisome job losses head on. Instead, the new Liberal government has signed Canada on to what has been called the worst trade deal ever. It is a deal that puts thousands more auto jobs at risk.

The Prime Minister likes to proclaim on the world stage that Canada is back, but when it comes to manufacturing, this is unfortunately not the case. We desperately need an automotive and manufacturing strategy, now more than ever. If we do not create a strategy and aggressively seek new investment, we will continue to lose jobs to other jurisdictions.

I have heard an incredible level of support for the NDP's auto plan, which would make better use of the auto innovation fund and the supplier innovation program. Our plan would also make it easier for automakers to set up operations in Canada by creating iCanada, a one-stop shop with access to all three levels of government and dedicated staff who would be working to bring investment to Canada.

As an MP who represents rural communities across Essex, I welcome the government's commitment to improving access to broadband internet, but this commitment alone falls far short of the support farmers have asked for. The budget makes no provision for promised compensation for farmers who will be hurt by trade deals like the TPP and CETA, even as the government continues to push to ratify these deals. These trade deals chip away at Canada's supply-managed industries at a time when we should be strengthening family farms and ensuring that they have the tools they need to remain viable.

The budget shortchanges promises for new funding for agricultural research and value-added production and also for the Canada Food Inspection Agency by more than $130 million over two years.

I must also reiterate my call on the government to finally implement a PACA-like payment protection system for fresh fruit and vegetable growers. Producers have called for this for years, but their pleas fell on deaf ears under the Conservatives. They were so hopeful that things would finally change and were disappointed to see no commitment to PACA in the Liberal budget. The absence of a PACA-like system hurts farmers' ability to export and exposes them to unnecessary costs and great financial risk.

I introduced a motion calling for action and a resolution by the end of the year, which received support from the Windsor-Essex Regional Chamber of Commerce, the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers, and the Canadian Produce Marketing Association. My friends on the agricultural committee have also been studying the issue, and witness after witness has called for a PACA-like system. This should not be a political issue. Farmers just want to see the solution they are asking for implemented. I am determined to work with my colleagues to move this file forward for farmers so they can get the protection they deserve.

My riding of Essex is home to a short line rail service called the Essex Terminal Railway. This 54 kilometres of rail service runs from the east side of Windsor through La Salle and ends in Amherstburg. It is integral to the economic strength of our region and provides jobs and economic competitiveness while reducing congestion and pollution on our roads.

The short line rail industry has made several requests of budget 2016, including a seven-year capital funding program to help the industry improve existing infrastructure, expand its network, and meet new federal regulations. While they will be disappointed that the Liberal budget neglected their requests, I look forward to working with our local partners in support of the Essex Terminal Railway.

On a similar note, our Windsor-Essex region is excited about the prospect of high-speed rail. Rail investments such as this would usher in a new era of economic opportunity for our region. I urge Canada, the only OECD country without high-speed rail, to move forward and seize the potential of rail investments to stimulate economic growth in all of our communities.

As the member of Parliament for Essex, I am committed to working closely with municipalities in my riding to seek funding opportunities for improving and restoring historical and federally owned buildings. This will help our region protect and celebrate our heritage while creating new opportunities to attract tourism.

Speaking of tourism, I am also committed to being a strong partner for vintners in my region. Essex county is home to nearly 20 wineries, producing award-winning wines and attracting tourists from afar. The Canadian wine industry contributes nearly $7 billion to the Canadian economy and is working hard to increase international exports as well as their domestic market share. I have met with wine producers in Essex county, and I support their call for greater federal government support for the industry's continued development.

I have spent a lot of time looking at this budget and what it means to the people I represent.

I would like to end on a positive note. I am thrilled that the government has increased funding for the Canada summer jobs program. This will mean that more students in Essex will get valuable, paid work experience to help them build the skills they need to succeed in today's job market. It also supports local businesses and organizations with talented young people who are eager to learn and contribute. I look forward to working with the government on this file and will work hard to help the people of Essex access available funding from all government grants and funding streams.

I am honoured to serve as the representative for Essex and to stand up for their priorities each and every day.

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

Madam Speaker, I suspect that there are many New Democratic members of Parliament who are a little nervous about how to vote on what is one of the most progressive budgets we have seen in the last decade, and even longer than that. We can talk about the money that would be provided through the child benefit program, the increases that some of the poorest seniors in the country would get through the GIS, and the solid commitment to infrastructure dollars and building projects. I appreciate that New Democrats wanted to balance the budget, but when I listen to their speeches, they talk about wanting to spend more money.

How does the member feel about voting against one of the most progressive budgets we have seen in the last decade-plus?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I can assure my colleague across the aisle that I am not nervous at all about the way I will vote on this particular bill and that I have studied the budget extensively. While there are things that will help people in my region, there are gaping holes for others. Those who make under $45,000 in my community, in the small towns I represent with many minimum-wage workers, will not receive any type of tax benefit or help.

He talks about the money that will go to families. Of course, this is a benefit for families, but it does not address a huge issue in my riding, which is child care and the lack of affordable, safe child care spaces. He also mentioned seniors. Seniors are largely left out of this budget. Let us talk about health care, the gaping hole that exists for palliative care, the $3 billion that was promised to communities that simply does not exist. This is the reason I am looking critically at this bill.

Again, I promise my colleague across the aisle that I will stand with full confidence in my vote.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my hearty congratulations to my colleague from Essex for her speech, which reflected the reality of the people she represents. She says that she is proud to represent her constituents, and I think that they can be very proud of their MP, who is so in tune with their reality. The member said that this budget does not meet all the needs of the people in her riding.

After making an election promise to reduce the small business tax rate, the Liberals decided to make them wait even though they are our most important job creators. I am guessing that was a real blow to the agricultural sector and entrepreneurs.

Would my colleague care to comment on that?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his kind words about my representation for my riding. I am very proud and I take it very seriously when I am looking at an issue such as this omnibus budget and breaking it down into ways that are relatable.

Small businesses in the community have been seriously let down. I represent five small municipalities. Small and medium-sized businesses are the backbone of Essex. There is absolutely nothing for these folks in the budget. The decrease promised by the Liberal government that did not show up in this budget is a huge letdown for small businesses. I do not know where their future lies without those extra funds, particularly in Ontario, with a Liberal government that is, unfortunately, raising hydro prices that are unaffordable for businesses in my riding.

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

Madam Speaker, I was really pleased to hear my colleague talk about short-haul railways. The role played by independently own railways across Canada is significant. We do not talk about them very much.

In the brief time remaining, I want to ask the member if she would agree with me that we should do more to help them own their own tracks, get goods from place to place, and reduce truck traffic on our highways.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, short-haul railways are integral to my riding. In particular, there are some that require attention. If we could do some improvements to two particular crossings that have small bridges, it would grow the economies of the small communities they serve. Of course, there is the environmental impact, which is incredibly important to all of us down in the sun parlour of Canada.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to be joining the debate at this hour.

As I have done before, I want to share a Yiddish proverb,“One builds the house and the other lives in it”. I think it really applies to this budget. Today I want to talk about the fiscal house the government is building through its budget.

If we look at the “Fiscal Monitor” for March 2016, we see that the Liberals had a budgetary deficit of $9.4 billion of their own creation. They spent the money. They did not control the cost and it is really one that they own.

The March 2015 “Fiscal Monitor”, the house that was built by the previous government, had a budgetary deficit for March 2015 of $3 billion, and that house was built on sturdy foundations, based on the idea that this is not the money of the government and this is not the money of the House. It belongs to taxpayers and we are here as stewards on their behalf.

We see also in the March 2016 “Fiscal Monitor” that personal income taxes and corporate taxes were both down, $1.1 billion on the personal side, $2.1 billion on the corporate side, and $0.2 billion on non-resident income tax. Revenue was way down but spending was way up. Direct program expenses were up $1.5 billion.

If we look at the comments made by the former parliamentary budget officer, he said, “The (Conservative) government handed over a set of books that were, for all intents and purposes, in balance”. Furthermore, he went on:

Policy related changes include the Liberals booking $3.7 billion in future veterans benefits in the 2015-16 fiscal year, while tax changes, an Alberta stabilization fund, Syrian refugee costs and the cancellation of federal sick leave savings totalled $2 billion....

And their spending and tax measures are going to add to that deficit.

This is truly a budget that builds a fiscal house based on structural deficit, so there is no foundation. There is just an ample, large volumes of spending. Most of the spending is really being thrown away. It is done without any real, focused purpose. It is not really being done for the benefit of the middle class. In fact, one commentator said that this budget is “a giant meat grinder of taxpayers’ money”.

While for many of us it is kind of shocking to see how the concept of stewarding both the economy and taxpayer dollars has been thrown out the window with the budget. I also think about the obvious effects of just how little effort the government puts into cost control or this concept of stewarding taxpayer dollars.

When the government took power in early November 2015, it also began owning all of these spending decisions. As I mentioned, there is quite a few of them that the Liberals have made since then, and they have chosen to go down this path of deficit spending. During the campaign we heard that they would have small, reasonably sized $10-billion deficits. To me that seems completely unreasonable. That deficit has grown through $29.4 billion, $29.5 billion, $29.6 billion, to almost $30 billion.

We see that all of those promises the Liberals made during the campaign are not really worth the paper they were written on. They own this spending that they have done since they took power in November and it is truly theirs. The Liberal deficit has been reaching new heights since March 2016, and as in the budget, there is no end goal. There is no end to the spending. They will just continue to spend to new heights. They have no plans to return to a balanced budget.

When we look at the budget a little more closely, we also see that the revenue numbers are hard to believe. The Liberals believe that between this fiscal year and the next they will have an extra $10 billion just in personal income taxes. It makes one wonder how and from where will they get this money. They say they are getting it from Canadian taxpayers, but I just do not see the potential for an increase that is so high.

The borrowed money of today is really the taxes of tomorrow. If we binge borrow today, as the Liberals are doing, eventually we will have to pay it back. Binge borrowing today by the Liberals will require them, and they are already doing so, to squeeze the private sector in terms of the borrowing opportunities. The private sector has to go out and find dollars from regular Canadians, from businesses or from banks to borrow as well, so public sector borrowing squeezes private sector borrowing and costs go up.

The federal government is displaying and creating this type of environment where it will be more difficult in the long term for the private sector to borrow at reasonable rates. There is also an open question as to whether any of these budget numbers make any sense. A sizeable contingency fund was created. They have tagged the price of oil at $25, and at times they have really rosy revenue growth, which, as I said, especially on the personal income tax side, is just completely unreasonable and very hard to believe.

One other oddity I have mentioned in the House before and I have asked questions about to other members, today especially, is on the child benefit numbers. They actually start going down, starting in fiscal year 2018-19.

The result is a $1-billion gap between their numbers in 2018-19 and the numbers in 2020-21. The only reason to explain this gap is because either they believe that Canadians will be making vast sums of new revenue somehow, families will be making vast sums more and therefore they will be eligible for a smaller child benefit only, or they have no intention of indexing it to inflation and over time, the child benefit will simply decrease in its real value. That is the only way this works and the budget document is simply unhelpful in pointing out how this will be done.

On the very next page we have an explanation for every single other line item. They have no explanation for this decrease on the child benefit side. On infrastructure, again Liberals are off to a bizarre start with the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities wasting $800,000 on a new deputy minister's office. Is there truly no space available in Ottawa to fit a deputy minister's office? Is there truly no space available to start an infrastructure program but by building the Taj Mahal, by building, as a colleague of mine from Edmonton West called it, sky palace 2.0 for Albertans who are quite aware what sky palace 1.0 was, a huge waste of dollars.

On the infrastructure record, the Liberal record between 1994 and 2006, was $351 million allocated to Alberta. A pittance, peanuts. The Conservative record in comparison between 2006-15 was $3.4 billion of infrastructure spending, real money allocated to real projects, projects one can see in my community like the Stoney Trail bypass of the city of Calgary built with federal and provincial monies including the City of Calgary.

If we want a record of fairness and standing up for Albertans, the budget does not have that. The budget does not help Albertans continue to build in the fastest growing cities in Canada.

There is a measly $4 billion in the current budget to be spent on actual infrastructure. Another $25 billion is being spent and over 80% is being spent on a wish list of program spending, so there is very little infrastructure spending in the budget. The Liberals have plans to spend more, but in the budget they have tabled with this budget implementation act that would actually change the laws to make it work, they have almost nothing available for actual infrastructure.

If we look at small businesses and how they are hard done by the budget, they are losing out on a 1.5% tax cut they were supposed to get. That was another broken promise by the Liberals. I talked of a meat grinder for taxpayer dollars, but I am sure the Liberals have also a very well used industrial shredder for all those Liberal promises they are no longer willing or able to keep.

The PBO estimated that a reduction to 9% would reduce the federal revenues of $2.15 billion over the next four years and this is net. Put another way, this was $2.15 billion that small business owners would get to keep in their pockets so they could reinvest it into their business.

We talked about innovation. There is no greater innovator than small business owners trying to grow their business. They do not need the government to tell them how to do it, they can do it themselves.

When we look at the PBO's report even further, we also see the real GDP impacts. Employment numbers will go down by $1.24 billion. Again, it is a huge loss not to reduce the small business tax. I know when I worked for the Calgary Chamber of Commerce, we moved a motion at the provincial level to simply reduce the small business tax by 1% to match it with Saskatchewan. This was hugely popular in the chamber movement in Alberta.

I know the record that the previous Conservative government left to the current government: the number one most reputable and admired in the world, the Reputation Institute; the number one government net debt, GDP,G7, OECD, AAA credit rating; best country for business in the G20, according to Forbes; number one best G7 job growth since 2008 according to the OECD. All of this is at risk with this budget.

The list is no doubt a flurry of wasting tens of billions of taxpayers' dollars. To return to the concept that I started with, the Yiddish proverb, the house that we are building in the budget has no foundation. It is built on bingeing of debt, debt as far as the eye can see, structural deficits that it will take a generation to fix, and successive governments will struggle with it because they have to, there is nothing here. There is no plan.

We are talking about future generations and many of us have talked about the graduating students. There is nothing in it except debt and higher taxes in the future. I will oppose the budget and invite other members to do the same.

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

Madam Speaker, I often ask Conservative members this question. I know it can be difficult to vote when there is something in the budget that I believe many Conservatives are glad to see, and that is the whole issue of the tax break. In excess of nine million Canadians, Canada's middle class, will receive a substantial tax break, adding literally hundreds of millions of dollars to people's disposable income.

We are talking about individuals like teachers, manufacturing workers, and bus drivers, so many individuals in every region of the country. This bill would deliver a tax break for those Canadians. Not to mention the Canada child benefit program, where we will see millions of dollars being delivered into the homes and literally lifting hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty.

How does the member feel about those two specific issues? Does he feel this is something he would support?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have no problem voting against this budget. I have absolutely no problem voting against the Liberals on most of the things they put forward as part of their government agenda.

The simple reason is this, especially on the child benefit issue. The member must know that in the Liberals' budget, they cut $1 billion out of the child benefit program in the term of their government. It actually starts going down in total numbers. They are not being straight with Canadians about how they are going to run the program.

The next part is on the income tax issue. I have a constituent named, Cole. Cole works in a casino. He gets a smaller tax break than I do, because of the Liberal supposed middle-income tax cut. That is not a tax cut for middle-income Canadians. Cole is a middle-income Canadian. He deserves a tax cut, which he is not getting with this budget.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for talking about tax breaks for the middle-class and for small business, and failed Liberal promises.

On the question he was just asked about middle-class tax breaks, when we looked at the middle-class tax break offered by the government, two-thirds of Canadians did not qualify for those tax break.

He talked about one of his constituents. We did the math. Anyone who earns $23 an hour or less gets nothing in the middle-class tax break that the Liberals have proposed. The people who benefit the most earn between $50 and $100 an hour.

I want to ask my colleague how he feels about this. In talking to my constituents, those who earn between $50 and $100 an hour, even they think it is unfair that someone earning $23 an hour or less gets nothing in the so-called middle-class tax break and that small business people, who are the economic generators, the job creators in our society, get nothing with respect to the tax break promised to them.

Maybe the member could talk a little about these false promises.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member and I share an interest in Kurdish issues, and both of us participate in a parliamentary group on it.

The member is exactly right. This budget offers very little for the supposed middle class on which it is themed. That is the very front page of it.

Going back to my constituent, Cole, a pit boss at the Deerfoot Inn & Casino, and the card dealers who work there, they are the ones deserving of a tax cut as are small business owners. Neither of them are getting it.

I, who am a higher income earners, and members of Parliament in the House, who are also higher income earners, are getting the full benefit of this supposed middle-income tax cut because of the way the tax system works.

The Liberals are actually hurting Canadians who need it the most by driving the debt up to new heights. Taxes in the future will have to be raised to pay for the spending they are engineering today.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, today I rise to speak to the amendment put forward to strike clause 34 from Bill C-15, the budget implementation act.

Clause 34, as it stands, will amend the Income Tax Act in a manner that would increase the small business income tax rate to 10.5% instead of continuing its scheduled decrease to 9%. Right this minute, the Income Tax Act, as currently written, will continue to lower the small business tax rate down to 9%. The removal of clause 34 from Bill C-15 will be an important gesture to demonstrate the commitment that the government made to small businesses during election time. During the 2015 campaign, all parties promised to reduce the small business tax rate and continue the outlined reductions put forward by our previous Conservative government.

We understand that small businesses are the backbone of our communities and are essential for job creation and a robust economy. As a result, the government should be encouraging small business owners and ensure that they have access to low tax rates. However, the Liberals seem to think differently. This is exactly why clause 34 is so concerning. This clause seeks to break one of the key promises previously made by the current Liberal government. I strongly believe that this reduction is crucial to motivating small businesses to grow and prosper.

As the former coordinator of the small business programs at both the Vancouver Community College and Kwantlen Polytechnic University, I have trained many business owners in leadership and business development. There are many challenges that small business owners face, whether it is working long hours, sacrificing time spent with family and loved ones, or the personal expense. However, when it is time to mature as a business, and at the point of decision to expand or not, the ability to reinvest is key and perhaps the greatest challenge. The question is to expand or not to expand.

This is exactly true for female entrepreneurs. I have had the opportunity to witness the growth and prevalence of female-run businesses, through the British Columbia Women's Enterprise Centre. Tax burdens, whether personal or business, have always been a great challenge to creating access to the money they require in their own pockets to reinvest. Additionally, my involvement as one of the founders of the Ethno Business Council in B.C. and my personal business experiences both demonstrate that tax burdens weigh particularly heavily on immigrant entrepreneurs.

While I was completing my doctoral dissertation at the University of British Columbia, I focused my research on studying the business cycle of immigrant entrepreneurs. What I found then, and what I continue to witness, is that immigrant business owners require as much encouragement and assistance as possible, not as a handout, but real encouragement in low-tax policies and business development opportunities.

Over the past several months, I have continued to meet with business leaders in my own riding and from across the country. One concern continues to ring out most clear. Lower tax rates, whether federal, provincial, or municipal, are crucial to small business development. It is not for the government to choose winners and losers. However, that is exactly what we have seen. The current Liberal government has chosen small businesses as the losers.

On several occasions, the Minister of Small Business and Tourism has stood in this House and promised to reduce the tax rate for small businesses. She promised that she was working with the Minister of Finance and other colleagues to ensure that the voice of small business owners were heard. Unfortunately, that was all for nothing.

Instead, the Liberals have deliberately and blatantly left small business out of the budget and show no indication of following through on their promise. Small businesses across the country feel slighted and have witnessed first-hand the broken promises of the Liberal government. However, by accepting this motion, the Liberal government would be able to demonstrate to small businesses that it recognizes their worth and seeks to support and encourage growth for lower tax rates.

As research and data emerge regarding the government's decision to eliminate the tax rate reductions, we are gaining a clear picture of just how much this will cost our small business owners. According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the CFIB, this decision will cost small and medium-sized firms over $900 million, compared to the government letting the scheduled small business tax reductions stand. That is a cost of nearly $1 billion that the Liberal government is placing on our hard-working middle class. Instead of alleviating the burden on our middle class, the Liberals are actually adding to their burden.

There is no doubt that small businesses stimulate our economy and encourage growth. The president of CFIB, Dan Kelly, stated that “The simple truth is Canada's small business owners are overwhelmingly middle class. They are your mechanic, accountant, hair dresser, and landscaper, just trying to earn a living doing something they love.”

The Liberals are looking for a way to pay their debt by placing it on the backs of our small businesses. Our middle class is not responsible for the Liberals' reckless spending. This I have mentioned before. When small businesses are paying more in taxes, it means they have less money in their pocket to reinvest in their businesses. Whether these investments materialize as hiring new employees, seeking out new business opportunities, or expanding their market, each is important, and this budget will inhibit any type of growth.

I am proud to support this motion to amend Bill C-15, and I strongly encourage all members of the House to do the same. We need to invest in our small and medium businesses and provide them with tools and funding to help them succeed, not just in the start-up phase, but throughout their entire business cycle. Small business owners are counting on us. We need to demonstrate that we value their hard work.

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

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the hon. member opposite talk about the need for tax cuts. Putting aside the fact that taxes did not go up for small businesses, future reductions have been deferred, and taxes did go down this year.

I have been reading through all of the private members' bills that the Conservative Party has introduced in the House this term. It is quite fascinating to note that we do not find tax cuts amongst them. We found things like an act to amend the Criminal Code. We found an act to establish a national appreciation day, a much higher priority than tax cuts in terms of the private members across the way. We found an act to amend the firearms legislation and an act to amend corrections and conditional release. We did not find tax cuts as being a popular component of their private members' bills.

I am curious as to why the member herself has not brought forth a private member's bill, if the issue is that important to her.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, our Conservative government lowered personal taxes 120 times. We do not need a measure in the bill just to reinstate our commitment to cutting small business taxes. It was in our campaign promises, as it was part of every party's commitment.

Once in power, why did the Liberal government forget about its commitments and not fulfill its promise to lower small business taxes? The Liberal government should be facing that challenge. The Liberal government should be helping our small business owners.

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

Madam Speaker, it is incredulous to me, to anyone who sits in the House on this side, that the hon. member would actually bring that up when he knows full well that it was the Liberal Party that promised to bring the small business tax rate down, and yet it is not included in the budget. However, I digress. I am not actually here to speak to that, but it is worth noting.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague about small business. In the committee of the whole last week, the Minister of Finance was asked a very pointed question as to whether in fact he had consulted with Dan Kelly of the CFIB during budget deliberations. Like an artist in Cirque du Soleil, he contorted his body in every angle without answering the question. Therefore, I would like to ask my hon. colleague a question. How important would it have been for a finance minister to meet with the president of the CFIB during budget deliberations?

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, during many of my visits and discussions with the president of the CFIB, the first concern he raised was they were not even able to secure a meeting with the finance minister. How can the government really set up a policy when the most important economic element in our whole community in Canada that creates over 95% of jobs is not even heard?

In my experience, in meeting many of the business owners, and as a former business owner myself, this is exactly who we should be listening to, small business owners and small business organizations that represent them. I mentioned the B.C. Women's Enterprise Centre, the Ethno Business Council of B.C., and all those business associations I have been consulting. We should be listening to them. This is their major concern.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to mention that small businesses in my area are concerned. They are trying to invest, to hire, and to develop.

I would like to ask about the overall government plan on spending. If spending for the sake of spending were true, Ontario would be the economic engine of Canada. Of course that is not true. Perhaps she could speak to that.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, the government has said it is going to spend on infrastructure and innovation. What they are spending on is the program, and the program administration. There is no actual job creation. There is no direct benefit to any of our businesses, especially now that it is actually increasing taxes to our small businesses.

Again, to grow or not to grow, to expand or not expand, that is the question. I do not think the Liberals have a good answer to it.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a huge honour to rise to speak on Bill C-15. As a spokesperson for the NDP on small business, I am going to focus on the small business tax cuts that are not in this bill, that are going to be deleted, and the false promise by the Liberals.

As a former small business owner, as a former executive director of a chamber of commerce, and as a member of Parliament who represents a riding that has six chambers of commerce, I understand small business and know how important small business is to our communities and we support it. Small business people are the builders of our communities. They are the volunteers who sit on our boards, donate to charities and local organizations, and sit on councils in local governments. These are the people who coach our children and are innovators. They build the culture of our communities and are the backbone of our local economies.

In 2008, I was a small business owner. I remember when the largest recession hit since the 1930s. Sales plummeted and people had hard decisions to make in order to keep their businesses alive. Some businesses did not make it. It was a tough reality, and that it is the way it goes sometimes. However, what was really hard to justify were the massive bailouts for Canada's largest corporations and nothing for small business. Many small business owners saw this as completely unfair.

In the last election, small businesses felt like they were going to get a break and have a little more fairness. All three parties, including the Green Party, promised to lower taxes on small business to 9%. I have the page from the Liberal platform in my hand, in black and white, which says, “reduce the small business tax rate to 9 per cent”.

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

It's not worth the paper it's written on.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

That is right, Madam Speaker.

How did this promise come about? In February 2015, the NDP promised that it would reduce small business taxes from 11% to 9% to give job creators a needed break. The Conservatives played politics at first by voting down the measure, but then, to their credit, inserted the small business tax reduction into budget 2015. During the election campaign, all parties, even the Green Party, supported keeping these tax cuts that would have gone to 9% by 2019.

Political parties cannot agree on the time of day, so this was significant. This was huge. Small business owners felt they could be assured that after years of breaks for big corporations, they would finally get a little help, but then the government tabled its budget. This budget bill would delete all future reductions to the small business tax rate, with no plan to bring them back at a later date. They were just deleted.

It is a fact that this bill would delete all future reductions, but not once have the Liberals acknowledged it. Instead, they say, “Who knows what will happen in future budgets”. That is not a commitment. That is not a responsible way for government to speak to small business people, the people who are the foundation of our local economies. The Liberals made a promise and they broke it. Instead of owning it, they are hiding behind political spin. They will say that they have made all kinds of other promises, on top of other promises, like personal income tax cuts and child care money that will help.

Let us look at the so-called tax cut for the middle class that does nothing for those earning $45,000 a year or less, but really benefits the people earning around $200,000. If Liberals thinks that most small business owners do not benefit from income taxes, then they truly do not understand the business world. Small business people count on every dollar they earn to keep their businesses going, to pay their employees, to pay their rents, and to contribute to the local economy. The child tax benefit measure will not cover the cost of child care, so it is not enough.

It was a promise. The Liberals knocked on doors, visited small businesses, held round tables, all while making their promise crystal clear. There is a word I am not allowed to say in this place, but Canadians know what it means when a promise is made on something with no intention of doing it. It starts with the letter “l”. It was a slap in the face to small business.

Some have asked if small business really need this break, and the answer is yes. Small businesses create 78% of all new jobs in the country. They are the backbone of the economy. Fifty per cent of small businesses earn less than $40,000 a year. Seventy per cent of small businesses earn less than $60,000 a year. I have this information from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

If the government was truly interested in growing the economy and creating jobs, it would do everything it could to support small business. It is important that we keep money in our local communities and plug economic leakages. When we look at buying local and spending money in our local community, we can see the multiplier effect. When we spend money at a local business or small business in our community, 46% of that money stays in our community, versus 14% spent at a multinational. Therefore, it is very important that we invest in small businesses and make sure that we keep that money.

As we know, the parliamentary budget officer did a report that said that $2.2 billion is going to be lost to small business by getting rid of the small business cut. When we add the multiplier effect, it is a lot of money to the local economy. If we want to grow our economy, and we want to do it in a way that supports community economic development, we need to invest in small business.

I have spoken directly with small business owners across Canada. Many were counting on this. Small business owners in my community, who have a whale-watching company, told me that they were planning on using the tax cut to help purchase another boat and add to their fleet, but now they are not sure that they are going to be able to afford it. They looked at it over four years.

At the of the day, this is about priorities and fairness. Consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments have slashed taxes for Canada's largest and most profitable corporations from 28% to 15%. We know that a lot of that money ends up being dead money. It ends up in the hands of shareholders and leaves our communities.

We need to invest in small business. If the Liberals truly wanted to, there is nothing stopping them from honouring their promise.

Some might ask how we can afford to invest in small business, the $2.2 billion to do this right. I will give an example, and it is about choices.

Budgets are about choices. Elections are about choices. The current government has a choice. There is $800 million annually being lost through shareholder stock options. CEOs are getting a tax break when they are not paying their fair share. If we close that loophole, it would more than cover the small business tax break.

The Liberal government is making a choice to give CEOs a huge tax break instead of giving it to small business people in our communities. This is very important, because when they say that we cannot afford it, we can. We know we can. It is about choices. To go back to people in our communities and tell them that we are going to choose CEOs who are not paying their fair share over small businesses is a slap in the face.

I really hope that Liberals and members of the House will vote against the bill. Vote for the people at the doors they knocked on. Vote for the people in their communities instead of voting for Canada's CEOs, those who earn the most, and make sure that they pay their fair share. The myth that CEOs will suddenly pull out and that investment will pull out if we close these tax loopholes is wrong. It is not true. Fundamentally, it is not right.

We need the government to do the right thing and make sure that those who can afford it pay their fair share, that those who need a break get a break, and that small business counts and is a priority. We need to build trust with small business people instead of continually breaking trust.

I hope government members and all members of the House will vote against the bill, vote for the small business people in their communities, vote for what is right, and vote for the promises they made.