House of Commons Hansard #67 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was industry.

Topics

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

June 7th, 2016 / 5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to stand in the House and speak to Bill C-15. The bill would implement a number of the measures that the government had previously announced in the budget that was tabled here in Parliament on March 22.

Today I would like to outline the various reasons why I am opposed to this legislation and also to the fiscal plan of the government more generally.

The main reasons why I am opposed to the budget include the following: a larger than promised deficit, not just larger but huge; removal of the universal child care benefit and other beneficial tax credits; gutting of the Canadian military; lack of support for small businesses; and the list goes on. What really irks me and most Canadians is that the Liberals brag about a middle-class tax break when we all know that in reality it is really a middle-class tax fraud.

I want to carry on with the topic of deficits. This was perhaps the most disheartening part of the budget. many Canadians were disappointed that the Prime Minister broke his main election promise to Canadians to keep deficits at $10 billion or less. Budget 2016 misses this target by a country mile. The budget projects deficits of $29.4 billion in fiscal 2016-17; $29 billion in 2017-18; $22.8 billion in 2018-19; and further deficits past 2020. This is not what was promised to Canadians and is not a fiscally responsible plan. The Liberal government has the arrogance and audacity to plan for deficits far beyond even its elected mandate.

What is most concerning is there is not a clear plan or pathway to balance the books. When the global economic crisis hit in 2008, the former Conservative government and my good friend the late hon. Jim Flaherty recognized the need to run deficits to stimulate the economy and create jobs for Canadians. However, it was always made clear to all that there was a plan to return to balance. Budget 2016 provides no such plan and the economy is far better off today than it was in 2008.

The government seems content with running deficits simply for the sake of having a deficit. The most recent “Fiscal Monitor” was very telling of this. It showed us that from April 2015 to February 2016 the government was running a $7.5-billion surplus. However, the government posted what has been called a blockbuster deficit of $9.4 billion in the last month of the fiscal year and therefore we were left with a $2-billion deficit for 2015. This is shameful, simply does not make any common sense, and certainly does not make any economic sense.

I have heard from a number of families in my riding who are concerned with the benefits that the budget would take away from hard-working families. Most notably, budget 2016 would remove the following tax credits: the children's fitness tax credit, the children's art tax credit, and tax credits for post-secondary education and textbooks. These measures were widely supported by families in my riding and across the country who enrolled their children in minor hockey, baseball, soccer, and lacrosse, and by those who enrolled their children in dance classes, piano lessons, and other arts and culture activities. Furthermore, the tax credits that supported those in post-secondary education were vital for helping families afford to send their children to school beyond high school. All gone. The floor swept clean of good programs just because they were initiated by the previous government.

While in government the Conservative Party reduced taxes to their lowest point in 50 years, which resulted in a typical family of four saving almost $7,000. We brought in concrete measures that allowed families to keep more of their hard-earned money. Furthermore, these were fair measures that benefited all families, in particular, low- and middle-class families. Did I happen to mention that middle-class tax fraud?

In keeping with the topic of keeping taxes low, I was also disappointed to see two measures in budget 2016 that are bad news for small businesses in Canada. These are keeping the small business tax rate at 10.5% instead of lowering it to the scheduled 9%, and ending the hiring credit for small businesses. These were small potatoes for the government, but big items for small businesses. Small businesses, in my riding and in most ridings across the country, are the lifeblood of the Canadian economy and are especially important in rural communities. They are responsible for 82% of jobs in Canada. In my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, the local economy depends on a healthy community of small businesses. I strongly support measures to ensure that small businesses keep more of the money they earn so they in turn can hire more staff and grow their business. That is how the economy works. Unfortunately, the budget removes two key measures that have supported and would have continued to support small businesses in Canada.

Furthermore, the budget is a slap in the face to the Canadian Armed Forces. We all remember too well the 1990s and what has been called the “decade of darkness” for our military under the Liberal government at the time. It appears as though while sunny ways are supposedly shining everywhere else, our military is once again being left in the dark. Budget 2016 removes $3.7 billion out the budget of the Department of National Defence, which was earmarked for vitally important procurement projects. What this means is that under this government the military will not be able to upgrade important military equipment. It is my fear that we are in for another Liberal attack on our military. In fact, the military is under attack, and it is not by ISIS. It is by the government.

Finally, I want to comment on Canada's recreational fishery and the importance that the industry has to the economy as a whole. Like my riding, I know, Mr. Speaker, your riding depends a lot on it. I have fished up there, and anyone who does recreational fishing, no matter where it is, they leave money behind, which supports small business.

My riding is surrounded by the Great Lakes on three sides, and the recreational fishing industry is a vital source of economic activity for a number of communities. For example, every year, the Owen Sound Salmon Spectacular draws anglers from across the country and out of the country to the area, which is fantastic for local businesses.

It should be noted that every year, recreational fishing in Canada adds approximately $8 billion in economic activity. Supporting this industry has always been a top priority for me, and I want to spend a few moments presenting an issue that I feel was overlooked in the creation of budget 2016.

The Great Lakes Fishery Commission plays a vital role in protecting our Great Lakes and the recreational fishery. The commission was established in 1955 by the Canada-U.S. Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries. The commission has a mandate to conduct research on the Great Lakes fishery and to protect the fishery from invasive species such as Asian carp and sea lamprey. However, while the United States has increased annual funding to the commission, budget 2016 contains no new funding. In fact, a number of the Great Lakes state governors have written to the Canadian ambassador, outlining their disappointment. I am with them on that. I am also disappointed that the budget did not address this problem.

In closing, Canadians expect more from their government than what they are getting with the budget. Canadians did not vote for spiralling deficits with no plan to return to balance. They did not vote for an assault on our military, and they did not vote for irresponsible economic policy. Lastly, they did not vote for a middle-class tax fraud.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

5:25 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

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

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the member. I believe the budget delivers what Canadians wanted. It delivers on a number of election platforms. Let me just cite a couple of examples of that.

The poorest seniors in Canada, single seniors in particular, would receive significant increases to their GIS. It is something the Conservative government failed to do. The budget would deliver the most generous Canada child benefit program that we have ever seen in the history of our country. It would lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. Again, it is something the Conservative government failed to do. The budget would deliver a substantial tax break to over nine million middle-class Canadians. That is hundreds of millions of dollars going back into the pockets of Canadians. The budget would commit the hugest amount of dollars to expenditures on infrastructure, in every region of our country. This is a budget that Canadians wanted.

I will narrow my question down to one issue for the member. How do the Conservatives justify in their own minds voting against one of the most significant tax breaks that we have seen to Canada's middle class? How do they vote against that?

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON

Mr. Speaker, he left that pretty wide open. The bottom line is that I do not know where the hon. member gets his numbers from. This is a budget that absolutely does not help the middle class, and I am going to concentrate on that because that seems to be the big item the Liberals want to talk about, the middle class.

The middle class, in their terms and definition, are people who are make the same money as members of Parliament. Anybody making up to $200,000 a year, in their wisdom, in their minds, is included in that.

How do I tell families where both spouses are working and making $40,000 to $50,000 a year that they are in the middle class, while a member of Parliament is included in the same category? I do not think many of them will buy it.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

5:30 p.m.

NDP

Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments.

Considering some of my colleague's recent statements or publications, I was wondering if he could tell us what he thought about the assistance programs for Canada's least fortunate. I am thinking about income security programs such as old age security and employment insurance.

What does he think about the help the government can give to Canada's least fortunate and what was proposed in the budget?

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON

Mr. Speaker, the first program the member mentioned was welfare. Welfare is there, like a lot of government programs are, for those who have found themselves in tough circumstances in life. I fully support that.

Employment insurance is there for people who lose their jobs. It is not there for somebody to use as part of a plan. I fully support that.

As my hon. colleague will know, the previous Liberal government took I believe it was $52 million or $54 million out of the EI fund, which it had no right to do, and it put it in the general coffers.

Those programs are in place and I fully support them.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in the House to speak to Bill C-15, the implementation bill for the budget the Minister of Finance tabled on March 22.

I will be very clear from the outset that I am very worried. This government does not know what it is talking about and does not know what it is doing. It spends without thinking, it throws money around the country from coast to coast, it has no structure, and no guidelines. I must say that it is a bad manager.

Let us go back to October 19. Let us look at the many promises that were made and broken by our friends across the way who are now in government. First, they said that they would balance the budget at the end of their term in four years, which they criticized us for doing. I will talk about that broken promise later.

Their second broken promise was having a modest $10 billion deficit. They told us that they now project an astronomical deficit of $30 billion for the first year. They promised to lower business taxes from 11% to 9%. They did not do that. Again, they did not keep their promise. They asked Canadian voters to trust them to put postal workers back on their routes. Again, that is not true.

With regard to refugees, the Liberals created an emergency. The election took a turn and, unfortunately, the party that was in the lead got bumped to third place. The Liberals took the lead by promising to bring 25,000 refugees to Canada before December 31, 2015. Once again, they did not keep their promise.

They said that the middle-class tax cut would be revenue-neutral. They probably do not know how to count. It is going to cost a minimum of $1.2 billion. They also said that they were going to paint the Quebec Bridge and that they were going to solve that problem in my region. They have two weeks left to do so, or 23 days to be exact, but I can already tell the House that they will not keep that promise either.

They said that they were going to do politics differently. It is funny but there have never been as many gag orders as there have been under this government. They are not capable of governing responsibly. Canadians families must not follow their example. I am a father and, if I managed my family's budget the way that the government is managing our economy, we would go bankrupt. Managers, parents, and adults need to do things carefully.

Yes, every so often, circumstances arise in which we need to borrow money to improve our country, but we need to do so in a careful and controlled manner. Every Canadian family knows that, sooner or later, they will have to pay back what they borrowed. The day of reckoning will come. It is the law. It is a fact of life. When we borrow money, we have to pay it back. Money does not grow on trees. We have to fulfill our obligations.

What the government announced in the most recent budget is a structural deficit created by the Liberals. We need a drastic remedy. With a little luck, in four years, Canadians will be able to elect a Conservative government. Our children and grandchildren are the ones who will pay the price.

There are members here who have children at home. If they do not set any limits, if they do not get organized, and if they always say yes, their family unit will crumble and they will go bankrupt. If you give a child a credit card with no limit, you will be in a mess in no time. That is what the Liberal Party is doing to our beautiful country.

This government must govern. It must make hard decisions, decisions that are not very popular, but that are nevertheless extremely important and responsible. For example, its decision to reduce the pension age to 65 years was easy and popular, but was it responsible? That is the question. I can only answer that it was not.

It is simple, really. Fewer people are contributing, and costs are higher. More people are taking money out of the fund, and fewer people are putting money in. Nobody needs to take a university course to understand that.

Are the Liberals aware that life expectancy is going up? People are in better health and have a wealth of experience. Why take them out of circulation?

Even an expert with a high-profile financial firm, when he was in private practice, commended the Conservative government for having the courage to make what was a difficult but necessary and responsible decision. What is that so-called expert doing now? He is the Government of Canada's Minister of Finance. Things are not going well. How are we supposed to trust this minister when he does an about-face now that he is responsible for the budget?

Imagine if I said that I was going to give back my universal child care benefits because my income is above average and, on becoming prime minister, I hired two nannies and kept my benefits. What is going on?

They cannot even admit to some of the facts that have been confirmed repeatedly by the parliamentary budget officer. We, the Conservatives, left a budget surplus, and that was after going through one of the biggest global financial crises. Our former leader, who was not a drama teacher, but rather an economist, successfully led Canada out of that situation and made it an economic leader and the first G7 country to get out of the red. As Canadians, we can be proud of that.

The Prime Minister said he was going to govern differently. He is not governing. He is surfing the waves and taking selfies. Rather, it is most likely his inner circle who are taking selfies. Instead of making decision, he is using words like “we are going to consult”, “we are going to analyze”, and “we are going to re-examine departmental reports”. Those are the kinds of things we hear all the time in question period. The Liberals do not even trust Canadian federal public servants. For instance, at Canada Economic Development, a survey was done to determine what to do with the subsidy programs and what sector to support. Let us be serious.

Where is the amazing plan they had announced during the election campaign?

I visited companies that told me they were discouraged by the red tape. On the tax side, business owners must have access to measures that will let them keep these companies in Canada and sell them to family members without losing their shirts. The current federal tax system makes this difficult. Why not look to Quebec for inspiration? It will help companies remain in Canada and let owners, such as a mother or father, to transfer their business to their family. Why not? Why do we not put in place measures to help make this happen? It is not complicated.

Let us move on to another matter and talk about Bombardier. The Liberals have not yet said whether they will support the company or how they would do it. They said that they would provide that information 10 days before the budget, and then in the budget. It is now June 7 and Bombardier's management does not even know what to expect.

It would have been easy and very simple to extend the runway at Billy Bishop airport. That is not complicated. It does not cost anything. However, the Liberals never choose the solutions that do not cost anything.

There is nothing in the budget for our regions. We have to invigorate our regions. The only measure is providing broadband Internet. Our regions deserve more than that. They have tremendous potential that must be developed with our local partners.

I will move on quickly and get to my conclusion. Do members know that the worst debt-to-GDP ratio in Canada's history, 72%, was recorded in 1996 when the Liberals were in power? Do members know that the best debt-to-GDP ratio was recorded in 2009, when the Conservative government and economist Stephen Harper were in power? How can we trust a drama teacher and his troupe? The current government has no vision. It consults, considers, looks at, studies, examines, observes, thinks about taking into consideration—

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

5:40 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I remind the member that he cannot refer to a member of the House by their first or last name. I must also inform him that his time is up.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

5:40 p.m.

Liberal

David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC

Madam Speaker, the only thing that is rich about the Conservatives' legacy is their own description of it.

Many of their statements are not exactly up to date. The Conservatives did not manage to balance the budget one single time in the 20th century. The last time they managed to balance it was in the 19th century.

They claim to be good economic managers, but with their magic economist, the former prime minister, I have a hard time believing that claim.

Can the member talk about the Conservatives' real history with balanced budgets?

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

5:40 p.m.

Conservative

Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his pertinent question. This gives me the opportunity to tell the House that the Liberals, once again, are not able to acknowledge the truth.

We balanced the budget in 2014-15 and we left the house in order financially. I do not know what planet the Liberals are living on, but their claims are not true.

I should therefore ask you, Madam Speaker, what is the procedure for requesting that a member retract an erroneous statement?

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

5:40 p.m.

NDP

Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I would like to come back to an issue that he raised but did not elaborate on it as much as I would have liked. I mean old age security. He said it was irresponsible on the part of the government to bring the age of eligibility back down to 65, but he failed to cite any studies showing that the program was not viable if the eligibility age remained at 65.

Earlier I tried to get an answer from one of his colleagues, who referred me to a blog post to try to justify the fact that his government raised the eligibility age from 65 to 67. Maybe I will have better luck with this member.

Can he refer me to any studies proving that the program is unsustainable if the eligibility age is set at 65? I would like him to cite at least one study, rather than a blog post.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for the question.

On the official opposition side, our objective is to create wealth. We need to get the economy moving. We need to invest in the regions. We need to put Canadians to work, so that they have money in their pockets. If the funds are available, we are willing to use them to improve our social programs. However, we believe that you need to have the money in order to make investments.

The same thing is true for families. If no money is coming in, no one can invest; no one can spoil themselves, and no one can go on vacation, for example.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

Kevin Sorenson Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague who serves on the public accounts committee with me for his hard work there and the great speech he gave today.

There have been a number of questions referencing 2008. The member before him spoke about the hon. Jim Flaherty and how, in the first two years our government was in power, we paid down $38 billion with surpluses. We balanced the budget, we had a surplus, and we paid down over $38 billion in national debt.

In 2008, the largest recession since the Great Depression hit, yes, we did go into deficit spending with infrastructure funding and investing in things that would help create jobs. Canada was the last to enter the recession and the first to come out of it. This showed that it was good fiscal management.

We had balanced budget legislation, which said that if we were not in recession, if the economy was growing, we would have balanced budgets. The current government has thrown that out and has gone from $10 billion to $20 billion to $30 billion in projected deficits—

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

5:45 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I want to give the member a chance to respond.

The hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC

Madam Speaker, indeed, we worked hard for the nine years that we were in power. What worries me, unfortunately for Canadians, is that the Liberals will destroy Canada in the next four years.

In Canada right now, the Liberals want to let young people use marijuana, let vulnerable people commit suicide, and send Canada into bankruptcy.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

5:45 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Order, please. I can see that people feel quite passionate about this debate. It is a shame we do not have more time, but other members want to ask questions and participate in the debate.

Fairness in Charitable Gifts ActGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

Kevin Sorenson Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I think that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That notwithstanding Standing Order 93(1)(b): At the conclusion of the debate on Bill C-239, if a recorded division is requested, the division be deemed deferred to Wednesday, June 8 at the conclusion of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Fairness in Charitable Gifts ActGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

Fairness in Charitable Gifts ActGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Fairness in Charitable Gifts ActGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Fairness in Charitable Gifts ActGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Fairness in Charitable Gifts ActGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

Ziad Aboultaif Conservative Edmonton Manning, AB

Madam Speaker, there are so many reasons why this legislation is bad for Canadians that I hardly know where to begin. The excessive spending the Liberal budget sets out is not targeted and will end up hurting businesses, families and hard-working Canadians in the form of future tax increases.

The budget is about spending. It will stifle economic growth. The Liberals hope that by throwing out buzzwords like “infrastructure” and “Innovation”, Canadians will not notice their true intentions.

When the Liberals took office, taxes were at their lowest point in 50 years, transfer payments had reached an all-time high, our economy was leading the G-7 in job creation and growth since the recession, and the budget was balanced. The Liberal budget is a plan for reckless spending that offers higher taxes, billions in new debt, and no real plan for jobs. It is a fundamental Conservative principle that Canadians should be able to keep their hard-earned money in their pockets.

Before the people of Edmonton Manning gave me their trust as their member of Parliament, I was a small business owner. I have owned and operated a number of businesses since coming to Canada in 1990. I know first hand the importance of balancing the books. I understand the importance of meeting payroll and how much having a good, steady job meant to my employees. I worked hard to build my business, because I knew that in Canada success comes with hard work.

My experience is the same as that of thousands of Canadian businessmen. We work hard and have the satisfaction of creating something. We are not rich, but we earn a living, and through our businesses, we help others earn a living also. That may be why I was so disappointed to hear, during the last election campaign, that the Liberal leader thought small businesses were just a tax haven for the rich. I am not rich, but I have worked hard for what I have. I did not grow up with a trust fund.

Roughly two-thirds of small and medium-sized business owners fall directly into the middle class. Employers are about four times more likely to earn less than $40,000 than more than $250,000.

We know that small business creates jobs, According to Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, small businesses account for more than 98% of all firms in Canada and play a large role in net job creation. Small businesses created 77.7% of all private jobs from 2002 to 2012, a little more 100,000 jobs each year on average.

Given those statistics, it would seem only logical that governments would encourage small business owners to grow their business, that government would create a climate in which entrepreneurs would want to invest in expanding their companies, creating more jobs in the process. There is no logic in this bill.

We know the Liberals will have to raise taxes to pay for their out of control spending. It is unfortunate that 700,000 middle-class small business owners who employ 95% of working Canadians are the Minister of Finance's first target.

The Liberals ended the hiring credit for small businesses. The Liberals cancelled their planned youth employment hiring credit. The Liberals have broken their clear promise to small businesses to proceed with a small business tax rate reduction.

Our previous Conservative government encouraged job-creating small business by cutting the rate to 10.5% for 2016, with a planned further reduction to 9% to encourage growth and jobs. In 2015 the Liberal Party told Canadians that, if elected, they would also implement these planned cuts.

Apparently a year ago, they recognized the importance of small business. That does not seem to be the case anymore.

The Minister of Finance has said that the planned cuts would be deferred. He has not given a concrete date for implementation. Perhaps we can expect him to live up to his election promise when we see a herd of unicorns on the front lawn of Parliament Hill. What we do know is that the finance department has estimated that this broken promise would cost the small-business sector $2.2 billion over four years. By increasing taxes on job-creating small businesses, the Liberals are discouraging success and entrepreneurship for the whole country. They are hurting the middle class.

Another one of the provisions of this bill that I find profoundly disturbing is the repeal of the Federal Balanced Budget Act. This is a subject I would hope would be of concern to all Canadians. Let me quote from the preamble of that act:

...a sound fiscal position is crucial to economic growth and job creation over the longer term;

...attaining and maintaining a sound fiscal position requires that the Government of Canada achieve annual balanced budgets and reduce debt, other than when a recession or extraordinary situation occurs;

...maintaining balanced budgets and reducing debt helps to keep taxes low, instill confidence in consumers and investors, strengthen Canada’s ability to respond to longer-term economic and fiscal challenges and preserve the sustainability of public services;

...reducing the debt burden will help to ensure fairness for future generations by avoiding future tax increases or reductions in public services;...

The Federal Balanced Budget Act requires the Minister of Finance to be accountable to this House. If he wanted to run a deficit, he would need to appear before the appropriate committee, make a case for the deficit, and present a plan for a return to balanced budgets. I can understand why this is a concern for the current government. After six months in office, the Liberals have discovered that despite their leader's assurance, budgets do not balance themselves.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

5:55 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Is the House ready for the question?

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Government Orders

5:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.