Debates of Nov. 28th, 2017

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I thought I was pretty clear in my explanation of the difference between a deficit and a debt.

The Conservative government was in power during the worst economic crisis in the world, and yet Canada was the first major democratic country to balance its budget. We proved that we can invest in our economy and still achieve a balanced budget.

I would also like to remind all members of the House that it was the previous Conservative government that lowered taxes for Canadians, cut the GST from 7% to 5%, and took less money away from taxpayers, all while balancing the budget, making investments, and creating the largest infrastructure program in Canadian history to that point.

I am not sure how I could be any clearer. Indeed, the economic situation did create a deficit. We balanced the budget gradually and over time, while still putting money back in taxpayers' pockets. Unfortunately, we are back in the deficit spiral, which means that today, we are paying $15 billion in interest, on top of the $20-billion deficit this year and the $25-billion or $26-billion deficit from last year. For the people from Quebec who are listening today, that is equal to 53 Videotron Centres a year, and it will probably be the same next year. At this rate, every city and town in Quebec could have its own Videotron Centre.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on the Liberal government's second budget implementation act of 2017.

As with all legislation, members of Parliament must weigh the consequences not only of what is found in a budget implementation act, but also what is not included. It should come as no surprise to anyone that the government is not moving forward to lower the small business tax. That was promised in the 2015 election, but as I have pointed out, they broke their promise. Then after the great tax revolt of the summer of 2017, they had a revelation that breaking their promise to thousands of small business owners and then calling them all tax cheats was not a recipe to get re-elected.

While scouring the many parts of this proposed legislation, I thought that there might have been a line about how they would retract their ill-thought-out tax increases on local businesses, farmers, and entrepreneurs. Lo and behold, the government did not take this opportunity to provide clarification on the details of its tax increases and how it would be plucking more feathers out of the goose. The government's intention to raise taxes is causing great consternation among job creators throughout Canada.

The government likes to proclaim that it and it alone is responsible for any job creation, and in many respect it has been, as thousands of new individuals joined the ranks of the public service from across the country. For example, it has been estimated that the public service has grown by almost 10% in the national capital region since the Liberals formed government. While any government can go out and borrow money it does not have to create new full-time equivalents, we must always remember that such growth in these jobs is not sustainable.

There is an argument to be made that a government should stimulate the economy while in recession. However, it must also include a road map back to balanced budgets, as Prime Minister Harper predicted, and attained one year faster than his original plan. This brings me to the point that there are no measures included in the Liberals' proposed budget implementation act to get back to balance. It reminds me of the broken promise that the Liberals ran on in the 2015 election.

Some would say that the Liberals' election platform was one of the greatest works of fiction in recent memory. While it was not written nearly as eloquently as one would like, it was the platform, however, in which they made promises to Canadians.

During budget 2017, the Liberals projected a $28.5-billion deficit for this fiscal year. This was almost triple their campaign promise of running a small $10-billion deficit and that the budget would be back to balance in 2019. Finance Canada now says that if spending continues at the same pace, there will be no budget balance until 2051, which is almost 35 years.

Now the Liberals think they deserve kudos because their fall economic statement revealed that the deficit is only about $20 billion to date. While not as bad as originally projected for this fiscal year, it is still a broken promise as per their election platform. As they would like to call it, balancing the budget in 2019 is under way, but with challenges.

The Liberals have tabled a budget implementation bill and are asking us to get behind their finance minister's financial plan. Normally this would be par for the course in a parliamentary democracy, but it was only earlier today that the Prime Minister gave no clear answer to a point blank question on whether he would stand squarely behind the finance minister. What was most shocking was that it was a chance for the Prime Minister to publicly state he had full confidence in his finance minister, but he avoided giving a straight answer. This begs the question: If the Prime Minister will not defend his finance minister, why do members of the opposition trust anything the finance minister says?

There are many reasons for Canadians to be concerned about what is found in this omnibus bill. If the proposed legislation passes, it would allow Canada to join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. This would mean the Government of Canada would be giving $256 million over five years to that bank, even though Finance officials have stated that Canadians should not expect to see any financial dividends or return on this investment.

If the intent of the Liberal government is to send a quarter billion dollars to an Asian bank that will not see any financial gain, it can only lead those people who are questioning this deal to think there are ulterior motives behind this agreement. The government's priority to reach a free trade deal with the People's Republic of China should not be achieved using Canadian taxpayers' money, particularly when the money is being given to a bank located halfway around the world. At the end of the day, the government should not give loans to other countries when Canadians will be taking all the risks and seeing no rewards.

In this legislation, the Liberals are once again going after energy companies by repealing one of the tax credits for energy exploration. The government is phasing out the first one million dollars, and no longer will Canadian development expenses be allowed to be reclassified into Canadian exploration expenses. This change will have an impact on smaller and more up and coming drilling companies, exactly the ones that most rely on this tax credit. Ironically, this change was actually in the 2015 election platform. Raising taxes seems to be a promise the government is willing to keep. The government is more than willing to once again go after the energy sector, which employs hundreds of thousands of individuals either directly or indirectly, but it has no problem adding billions to our debt load while playing class warfare. This is all in the name of politics.

I cannot tip my hat to the government for another aspect of this legislation, It is trying to move the yardstick forward by eliminating many of the non-tariff barriers between provinces. Quite frankly, it is absurd that in many cases it is easier to ship and sell your products in a foreign country than to your provincial counterparts next door. While there has at least been some progress made to reduce interprovincial trade barriers, it should be noted that the list of exclusions to this agreement is almost as long as the agreement itself. I would prefer the Government of Canada to spend its time and energy on eliminating all interprovincial trade barriers than on attempting to woo the People's Republic of China.

It would be irresponsible of any member of this House to vote in favour of this bill. No member should endorse the government's budgetary plan. The government has completely eliminated any hope of ever balancing the budget. It has eliminated even the mere thought of having a plan to return to balanced budgets, and it is causing serious and unnecessary pain to Canadian businesses and our overall economy.

A government that spends more money than it brings in while the economy is growing is foolhardy. I have seen that personally when I spent my 14 years in the Manitoba legislature watching the NDP. The Liberal government is trying to outspend Manitoba's former NDP government. It is adding billions of dollars of new debt with not a lot to show for it. It should come as no surprise that the government is willing to waste taxpayers' money, such as spending over $200,000 to design the cover of their budget document or half a million dollars to make the Canada Post building look like a present.

Let me say this. Canadians are mightily upset about the millions of dollars being spent to build a hockey rink where no one will get to play hockey. They have a finance minister that nobody trusts. They have budgetary numbers that no one believes and they have no plan to create real private sector economic growth, other than spending billions of dollars of taxpayers' money on pet projects.

I cannot, and will not, support this legislation as, in many respects, the government has failed Canadians. It has lost its way and, unfortunately, Canadians are left picking up the tab.

In the weeks ahead we will see if the finance minister will keep his job. It is my sincere hope that, in the best interests of all Canadians, they will stop piling on debt and attacking local businesses.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite suggested there is not a lot to show for some of the federal spending. However, the Governor of the Bank of Canada disagrees and has called the Canada child benefit “highly stimulative”.

The member also talked about hopeless budgeting that no one believes, so I just want to read the following quote:

Taken from the perspective of the government sector as a whole (that is, federal and subnational governments and public pension plans combined), current fiscal policy in Canada is sustainable over the long term. Relative to the size of the economy, total government net debt is projected to remain below its current level over the long term....

However, this perspective masks unsustainable fiscal policy at the subnational level. While federal net debt is projected to be eliminated entirely in just over 40 years, we project that subnational government net debt will rise....

Current fiscal policy at the federal level is sustainable over the long term.

Of course, that was the parliamentary budget office in October of 2017. I wonder what the member has to say about that.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure my colleague across the way in the Liberal Party that the finance department of the Government of Canada has indicated that it would not even get rid of the deficit in 35 years, never mind getting rid of the debt in 40 years. I do not know whether the member has the ear of the finance minister or not, because his own department is telling Canadians that it will not even reduce the deficit for 35 years, as I said earlier.

I also believe, as I said, that if the governing party of Canada today continues the way it is going, it will outstrip the debt of Manitoba per capita, the province with probably the highest net debt per capita next to Ontario.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one thing in my riding that people have a lot of questions and concerns about is that the infrastructure money the government committed has not gotten out the door. They also hear that we are going to be investing half a billion dollars in an Asian infrastructure bank that will be used to develop or underwrite things like pipelines in Asia that will be run out of China.

Is the member hearing the same concerns from citizens in his riding and what might they be telling him about this particular aspect of the budget?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly hearing that from people in Brandon—Souris, my constituency, and throughout the Prairies, as I had an opportunity to be in a few provinces over the last few days. It is a sad irony that we would allow Canadian money to go into an Asian bank to build pipelines in a foreign country that has a ghastly environmental record, when we will not allow money to be used for pipelines in our own country. Very few pipelines will ever be built under the current government. The government is already halfway through its mandate. It has an infrastructure program that it talks a lot about, but three-quarters of the money promised in the election, including now for the infrastructure bank, has not even been used in Canada. If three-quarters of that promised money has not been used in Canada, why are we sending an equivalent amount to an Asian infrastructure bank? People are quite critical of this.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government talks a lot about the Canada child benefit. As one who understands finance and the economy, it is a pity that people believe that the Canada child benefit will lift the Canadian economy to the level that Liberals are talking about. Some reports suggest that 81% of the people the government is trying to help it is actually hurting.

I would ask my hon. colleague to comment on this point.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question.

I had an opportunity to be with my grandchildren on the weekend in Calgary, and one of the young ladies who was there with her own children, a friend of my daughter, asked if I was Mr. Maguire. I said yes and she said she wanted to tell me to keep up the good work, because we have to get rid of that guy. I asked her to elaborate and she said we have to find a mechanism to get rid of the Liberal government. This lady is about 35 years old with a family. She is married, lives in Calgary, and has three small kids. She was bemoaning the fact that the government has taken away income splitting and the child tax credits.

If members want to find out what is actually happening on the ground, they should go to playgrounds. The people with kids will tell them.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I noticed a couple of looks when the hon. member for Brandon—Souris referred to his own name. The Standing Orders do not permit members to refer to other members in the House by anything other than their riding names or titles. The Standing Orders are silent, though, on whether members can refer to their own names, so we have tended to permit it. If members wish to invoke their own name in the course of their own remarks, that is perfectly acceptable.

I will now recognize the hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as someone who is called Joël, I am pleased to rise today. I hope I will not be a lawless rogue.

I rise today to talk about a cartoon I saw yesterday evening that depicted Justin Trudeau receiving his report card from the Auditor General.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I would remind the hon. member that he cannot mention members of the House by name.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that was my mistake.

The Prime Minister of Canada was being given his report card by the Auditor General of Canada, Michael Ferguson. The context is as follows. The Auditor General shows him a note with the following written on it: incompetence, lies, and unaccountable spending. That is written in the cartoon. Our famous rock star, and I am referring to the Prime Minister of Canada, is standing beside his wax sculpture at the Musée Grévin. He looks at himself in the mirror and says, well, that wax figure is not that bad.

That says a lot about the attitude of the Prime Minister and the government. That is our Prime Minister's priority, and what he thinks of the impartial officers of our Parliament.

Total disregard. He could not care less about the Auditor General of Canada, who evaluates how well Government of Canada departments and programs are doing.

Incidentally, in his latest round of reports, the Auditor General looked at the Phoenix pay system. There is no comprehensive governance structure to develop a sustainable solution to pay problems. The Auditor General himself mentioned that in his report. The Liberals' only defence is to say that we, the previous government, are responsible, but it has been 16—no, 18—months since they gave it the green light, and they have still not found solutions to make sure our hard-working Canadian public servants get paid.

This is unacceptable. They are floundering. I do not know whether yesterday's vote on marijuana got them thinking, but they have not implemented anything and they still have no date. Public servants do not know it. Public servants have gifts to buy and mortgages to pay, but all they get from the government is radio silence. The Liberals have no solution.

That is serious. Their sole defence is to blame the former government for this fiasco. We were not the ones who gave it the green light. They were. They need to find solutions. Their job is to govern, although for the sake of all Canadians, I hope it is only for four years.

During yesterday's question period, and again today, the parliamentary secretary to finance answered opposition questions directed at the Minister of Finance. We are unable to get any answers to highly relevant questions about ethics and the appearance of conflicts of interest. We are asking questions and doing our job properly.

We are doing it so well that the commissioner recently fined the Minister of Finance $200 for certain violations. The Liberals cannot say that they are following the rules and are guided by the commissioner. The 335 or so other members, and I hope there are no others on that side of the House, because we on this side are all in compliance, followed the rules and respected the commissioner's ethics.

It is ironic that the Minister of Finance has a bill here today that we are debating. I do not trust this minister. He is not capable of giving an answer. We would gladly move on to something else. We would love to get the economy moving forward. We would love to see programs and departments get the resources they need. Why does the minister refuse to answer yes or no? Once he does, we can move on to something else. They are the ones who refuse to answer.

The government introduced a bill several months ago. Yesterday, at third reading, we voted on the legalization of marijuana. The Liberals are unable to manage the public service pay system, and now they would have us believe that they are legalizing marijuana to protect our children and eliminate organized crime. I do not buy it. They have not proved that they are competent.

The real reason the government is in such a hurry to legalize marijuana by July 1, 2018, is the economic impact this will have. The government is in a tight spot and has backed itself into a corner with the budget. It has been spending money hand over fist but not seeing any results.

In 2019, the government will have a record to defend. Legalizing marijuana will do two things. First, it will allow the Liberals to recover a little more money to pay down their infamous deficit, since they promised to balance the budget by 2019. However, they are now realizing that the way they have been managing the public purse will not allow them to do that.

I have given four speeches in the House on marijuana. I said that the physical development of young people aged 18, 20, 21, or 22 is not yet complete, and that statement is based on studies conducted by psychologists, psychiatrists, and scientists. I am not a doctor, but all of the studies show that brain development is not complete until age 25. Why play Russian roulette with marijuana? I find that unacceptable.

Do my colleagues know why the government has set the legal age for marijuana use at 18? It is because they hope that in 2019, the young people who will have had the privilege of using marijuana legally will vote for them. The government has a hidden agenda. The Liberals are in financial trouble, and they want more votes. It is always smoke and mirrors.

Today, we are debating a second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures.

My introduction has been long, but I must say that the government is patting itself on the back. It is telling us that the Canadian economy is going well and that the Liberals are the champions of the economy. The way they see it, the Canadian economy has never been stronger. They need to come down to reality. It is true that the economy is doing well or at least it is not in such a bad shape. Luckily we are not in an economic crisis. What would we do if we were? It would be tragic.

We Conservatives have weathered an economic crisis. Under the leadership of Stephen Harper, Canada was the first country to emerge from the economic crisis and get back on its feet. Among the G20 countries, Canada was the first country to do so.

We need to be aware that we are now spending hand over fist. Occasionally we invest in an economy, which is perfectly fine in a fragile or precarious situation or an economic crisis. However, since we are not currently in a crisis, it is irresponsible for the government to be spending so recklessly.

The government is congratulating itself by saying that it is investing in the economy through its infrastructure programs. I have the privilege of being the deputy critic for infrastructure. Quebec municipalities do not know what to do with the program. The Liberals said that they would pay up to March 31, 2018, but they also said that there could be an extension until March 31, 2019, but only 40%. What we do not know is whether the 40% pertains to project completion or submission. Can we help out our regions by giving them some breathing room?

Since everyone is in a hurry, costs are increasing. There is no vision, because we want to have the money available right now. It is irresponsible. Who is going to pay yet again? It is Canadian taxpayers, that is who. Being responsible means thinking about the taxpayers and not raising their taxes. That is what we did for 10 years on this side of the House. As for the members on the other side of the House, they are raising taxes. At some point, our taxpayers will not be able to function anymore.

I would have liked to talk about several other aspects, but time is running out. I will take the time when I answer questions.

In closing, I would like to say that I do not feel that I can trust this Minister of Finance. He does not have the decency to answer the questions that opposition MPs and Canadians have for him. From now on, any bills he introduces will fuel my skepticism about him. He reacts only when his back is against the wall. Personally, I do not want to give this Minister of Finance a blank cheque. I do not trust him.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech.

My colleague had some very interesting things to say. He said that the government introduced proposals in this bill on marijuana in order to win the vote of 18-year-olds who smoke cannabis. That is totally ridiculous.

I am not a doctor or a philosopher, but I remember my philosophy classes. There is a concept call Occam's razor. According to that philosophy, there is no need to seek a complicated explanation that relies on principles outside of experience when a simple explanation based on existing knowledge adequately accounts for the phenomenon that we are experiencing.

Does my hon. colleague know that the current consumption rate in Canada, with the prohibition of cannabis, is the highest in the industrialized world? If we want to regulate access to this substance and eliminate or greatly reduce the profits of organized crime, the best way to do that is to legalize cannabis.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it has been quite a while since I studied philosophy, but my colleague from Hull—Aylmer was probably quite involved in that field.

I am not naive when it comes to marijuana. I am not saying that there is not a problem. I wish to remind my colleague from Hull—Aylmer that he could read over my speeches. In them I said that while we have a special situation and we need to find solutions, legalizing marijuana is a cowardly approach.

Let us simply put two very simple things in place: a more rigorous and better-equipped force to eliminate or reduce organized crime and, to protect our young people, awareness programs to encourage them to get involved in sports and the arts. As well, as I said in one of my speeches, we should encourage them to volunteer for the many organizations that they will run into during the holidays. They need young people and new blood. As a society, we need to be proud and encourage these people so that we can be even more enlightened in Canada.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have some interesting observations.

First, the member spoke on infrastructure, knowing that $2 billion has not been rolled out in 2017. The government tried to announce a new housing strategy just last week, but the new housing strategy would really start after the next election, in 2020. It puts a tremendous onus on every province and territory in this country. They have not even been consulted; they were just told to divvy up.

The telltale sign of the government was today in question period when the Prime Minister would not even confirm that the current finance minister would deliver the next budget. That, to me, shows a lack of confidence, even on their own benches, that the finance minister is doing the job.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Saskatoon—Grasswood.

Indeed, that is strange, and I am not sure the government backbenchers are aware of what is going on in the front benches on the government side. It is important to understand that, yes, there is the national housing strategy, but with the tax reform, the Liberals are postponing everything and have said that they would cut corporate taxes to 9%, but not until 2019.

I invite my backbench Liberal colleagues to look closely at what is going on. The Liberals are managing their election, when really, they should be managing this country, Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about my journey this summer through my riding. It is very relevant to the budget implementation act tabled today and to what is not in the budget.

This summer I travelled my riding. It is 8,500 square kilometres. I did it by bicycle and by boat. People in my riding travelled with me, seniors, young people, leaders, chiefs, mayors, councillors. They rode with me from community to community. They came out to share what was important to them.

The reason I also did it by bicycle was because I tabled Bill C-312, an act to establish a national cycling strategy, on October 4, 2016. Members are probably wondering what the benefits are of a national cycling strategy and what that would do for Canadians.

The national cycling strategy would commit the federal government to set clear targets for the expansion of cycling-friendly infrastructure; encourage more Canadians to choose cycling as their mode of transportation; improve national safety standard measures such as side guard rails for trucks, support cycle tourism in Canada, which is one of the fastest-growing areas of tourism in the world; and increase education for cyclists, pedestrians, and motorists.

Why is a national cycling strategy important? We need to take small steps and a multi-faceted approach to tackle the great challenges we face with soaring health care and infrastructure costs, greenhouse gas emissions, and traffic congestion. Cycling is a sustainable transportation solution that is low cost, environmentally friendly, and encourages healthy living.

Therefore, Bill C-312 is a multi-faceted proposal to develop cycling options across our country. It addresses the social, economic, and environmental issues facing Canada today. It provides a plan for cycling infrastructure and education. It makes dollars and cents. With the rising costs of housing, gas and groceries, just to name a few, life is becoming increasingly unaffordable for many Canadians. Cycling is a sustainable solution offering to transportation, and we can make that happen. Therefore, we need to do more to make Canada a cycling nation.

I want to talk about a study that was recently done in Denmark. It shows that for every kilometre cycled, society enjoys a net profit of 23¢, whereas for every kilometre driven by car, it suffers a net loss of 16¢.

When I learned more about cycling in our country, what alarmed me was that in the Netherlands 50% of children would ride their bike to school. In Denmark, it is 40%. In Germany, it is 15%. In Sweden, it is 20%. In Canada, it is 2%. That is not because we live in this big, vast country, which one would think is the reason why. It is because 82% of Canadians live in an urban environment. In fact, 35% of Canadians live in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal alone. It is not because of our climate, because there is only a 1° difference between Stockholm and Toronto. It is because we have not made it a priority, set clear targets or made a commitment.

Let us look at the costs associated with health. I will give an example.

Heart disease in Canada costs us $12 billion a year. A recent study done in Denmark shows that the people who ride their bikes to work reduce their risk of heart disease by 40%. Imagine finding a pill that could reduce costs from $12 billion to $8 billion just by simply taking it. That is cycling. We need to set clear targets. We need to create a marketing and education approach to get more people on bikes and bring all users of the road together.

As a former municipal councillor, I know this. If the federal government puts a dollar on the table designated specifically for active transportation, for cycling, we know the province will not leave a dollar on the table. We know a municipal government will not leave $2 on the table. We know a local community group will not leave $3 on the table.

This is supported by many groups. The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment has endorsed the need for a national cycling strategy as has Canada Bikes. The City of Toronto recently wrote a letter of support for Bill C-312 and the need for a national cycling strategy. In my riding, Port Alberni and Cumberland have also committed to that.

There was nothing in this bill that was specifically designated in the last budget, and the budget before, for cycling in Canada. Therefore, we need to do more.

I started my journey on August 22 in Hesquiaht, which is about two and a half hours north by boat from Tofino. I was the first MP in the history of our country to show up in Hesquiaht. I was received very well. I went with Chief Lucas. The people talked about the importance of conservation on their herring, the reality of low-income assistance rates, the high cost of transportation, and the complicated failure of our government to respect their rights by the Supreme Court to catch and sell fish.

We went to Hot Springs Cove after that, and we heard the same thing. Then we went to Ahousaht. We met with Chief Louie and his council. We heard from them about--

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I appreciate my hon. colleague's comments, but I believe we are supposed to be debating the amendment on the Asian infrastructure bank. I would like relevance on the issue.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margaret's for her intervention. I know the hon. member introduced the notion of relevance at the opening of his remarks. It did seem for a moment or two that he was well into describing the upcoming measures for, potentially, a private member's question that will be before the House at some point in the future. However, it does fall to the hon. member to incorporate how that set of ideas fits. I think he was just getting around to that when the point of order was raised. We will let him carry on. Of course, I ask him to keep those arguments relevant to the question before the House.

The hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

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

Mr. Speaker, the intervention could not have been more perfect, because we are talking about where the government is not spending its money. It is in my communities. It is spending $500 million on the Asian infrastructure bank instead of infrastructure in Ahousat, in Hesquiat, and in Hot Springs Cove, and I am not done yet.

As I travelled through my riding, all I heard about was neglect from the government and bad decisions. I went to Tofino. People there told me about the lack of investment for marine debris and the lack of investment now, today, for affordable housing. I went to Ty-Histanis and Esowista. In the Tla-o-qui-aht nation, people talked about the lack of commitment from the government to honour its promise to ensure indigenous people would be its most important relationship and would be treated like that.

We talked about social issues, including elder care, which was not in the budget. The money is going to Asia instead. We talked about addressing the lack of monitoring and science-based indigenous decision making not being supported.

I went from there to Macoah in the Toquaht nation. People there had not received the support for a community centre. In fact, we had our gathering under a 10x10 tent. I was received beautifully, despite our neglect as a nation for this community, with a feather, asking us to work with them. In fact, they were looking for transportation support so they could grow their economy and build a nation, and be part of this great story.

I went to the Ucluelet nation. The people there welcomed me warmly as well, calling for language revitalization and support for a higher learning economy. These are all good ideas in which we can invest in Canada. They talked about Parks Canada houses sitting empty in Ucluelet, which could be used for housing people when they had a housing shortage. Those houses are actually rotting and moulding instead.

The government's neglect is costing us not just money, but infrastructure, which is available right now.

I went from there to the Huu-ay-aht First Nations. I met with Chief Dennis. He talked about the amount of children living in care, and the lack of investment from the government.

It is humiliating and embarrassing to hear that the government is concerned about what I am talking about today and is calling me out for that when it is investing in Asia instead.

I went from there to Bamfield. People there talked about the lack of investments and support for their institution and how they needed more.

I travelled to the Alberni Valley and met with Chief Tatoosh and the Hupacasath. We talked about the need for salmon restoration and EI eligibility for fishers. They received nothing from the government's coastal restoration fund and nothing from its oceans protection plan.

I travelled throughout the riding. I went and saw the STseshaht. I went to Hilliers and Nanoose Bay, to Coombs, to Parksville, to Qualicum, to Bowser, to Denman Island, Hornby Island, to Royston, Union Bay, Cumberland, and Courtenay. When I went to the Qualicum nation, and all those communities, they all said the same thing. They felt they had been ignored. They felt the government's priorities were completely out of order.

That intervention just said it all. The government wants us to talk about an infrastructure bank in Asia, instead of here in Canada, while people are suffering, living a meagre existence, and being totally forgotten. Seniors are being neglected. The lack of commitment from the government in my riding is clearly evident, where we have one of the highest poverty rates in the country, the highest in British Columbia, and in the Alberni Valley where one third of the children are living in care.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little perplexed about the reference to money going into Asia. In the last federal election, in a pamphlet called “Building the country of our dreams”, my friend's party outlined investments of up to $600 million in foreign aid. I am quite perplexed that those members are coming back today, saying that it is outrageous that money is going into Asia.

He needs to look a bit deeper into what these funds are going for and really reflect on where his party has been on bringing Canada back into the world. The commitments of the New Democrats in the last election clearly alluded to the fact that they too were willing to spend that kind of money. Today they are basically demonizing foreign aid. That is quite offensive.

My friend really needs to reflect on what he says because as a party, the New Democrats have been quite clear that foreign aid and our place in the world is quite important.

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

Mr. Speaker, it would be great if this money were going to foreign aid, but it is not. It is going to an infrastructure bank, money that could be invested in our communities. Alberni valley needs urgent investments for our port, which would create hundreds of jobs. That would be great for the Canadian economy. We could honour our commitment to Canada's indigenous peoples and ensure they would have investments so they could be part of this great story. Instead Canadians are living in poverty, and that costs a lot of money.

If it were about aid, the Liberals would be following up on their commitment to grow the GDP and our commitment internationally. Our party has been calling for that. The Liberals are dropping their commitment to aid. They are failing the United Nations and they are failing people who really need a lift up.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. It is obvious how much he cares about his riding, his constituents, and the issues that matter to them. I sincerely congratulate him on the figures he presented, including his cycling statistics. I was recently in Copenhagen, and I saw how incredibly popular cycling is there. He is quite right; we should be trying to bring forward these kinds of measures, rather than spreading ourselves too thin with all kinds of pipe dreams.

He mentioned the child poverty rate in his riding. As the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, I know that 37% of our kids, so over one-third, live in families that are living under the poverty line in Longueuil. The government seems to be turning a blind eye to the problem. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

When we see the government investing $5 million in a skating rink on the front lawn of Parliament Hill, we know where its priorities lie. Does my colleague agree?

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

Mr. Speaker, we are hearing about a temporary skating rink being built right here on the lawn of Parliament. It is going to cost over $215,000 a day, while in my riding, a third of the children are living in poverty.

Today I rose on a statement to call on the government to change the requirements for the Canada learning bond so every child could be registered. We know education is the most important indicator to help lift people out of poverty. However, instead of the government trying to get more children registered, is making it difficult.

We need to find ways to lift children out of poverty and make it a priority. It is a multifaceted approach. Health is one, education is the other, and housing is critical as we know. I call on the government to listen to what we are saying today, to make children a priority. Lifting every child out of poverty should be our utmost priority.

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

Mr. Speaker, when the member talks about poverty, why then did he vote against the Canada child benefit, which literally lifted tens of thousands of children out of poverty? Why did the member vote against the guaranteed income supplement, which lifted tens of thousands of seniors out of poverty? Many of those thousands of Canadians are his own constituents. Did he tell his constituents that he voted against measures to address poverty head-on?