Debates of Nov. 6th, 2017

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we welcome the changes to the Canada Labour Code that would allow employees more flexibility at work and also prohibit unpaid internships.

I would like the hon. member to respond to a couple of things. What really would help those working hard to get into the middle class would be a federal minimum wage and pay equity legislation. Those things need to happen to have an impact on those vulnerable folks and those who are not making enough money to make ends meet.

My final comment is that the unpaid leave for victims of domestic violence would pose a barrier, especially for those women who are poor. We know that women who suffer in relationships of domestic violence are often economically controlled by their partners. Their ability to access unpaid leave to deal with issues like lawyers and child care and to then go home and interact with someone who now knew they had brought home less income and wanted to know why would be a huge barrier for women trying to access unpaid leave. I encourage the government to be open to making that leave paid leave so that it is accessible to all women.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

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

I am always surprised when the NDP opposes some of our key measures that primarily benefit low- and middle-income people.

For example, in the 2016 budget, we introduced the Canada child benefit, which reduced child poverty by 40%. The NDP voted against it, but we are now going to make it even better. I cannot believe the NDP was against that. It is an honour for me to be here to talk about the initiatives in our 2016 and 2017 budgets that put Canada back on track for growth, job creation, and prosperity.

Since coming to power, we have put Canada back on the path toward the kind of growth that is good for the middle class and everyone.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize my colleague from Alfred-Pellan, who provided us with information.

However, I will try to debunk what he has said, as it is not consistent with the facts.

I am pleased to rise in the House to discuss the second bill to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures.

First, I would like to give a reminder. This Saturday, November 4, was the second anniversary of the Liberal government coming to power.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

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

I am not certain that all Canadians are applauding. It is limited, here, to one side of the House. What are the results of those two years? Only broken promises.

Through the Chair, I would like to inform those watching on television that I do not want to be alarmist. I only want to share facts. Canadians have enough judgment to be able to understand what is really happening and they will not be blinded by words or by flashes from the various cameras that follow the Prime Minister around.

During the election campaign, the Liberals went out to meet Canadians. Among other things, they said one important thing. They said to trust them, to vote for them, that they would create a slight deficit of $10 billion, and they assured their dear fellow Canadians that they would return to a balanced budget in 2019. They applauded earlier, but we cannot hear them now. They talked about $10 billion the first year; they finished the year with a deficit of $18 billion. This year, the deficit will be $20 billion. In 2018, it will be $18 billion. I remind you of their promise because it is a fixed date election. In 2019, they were to return to a balanced budget. Their economic update mentioned $17 billion. They talked about a balanced budget in 2019, but if I add it up, that makes $73 billion dollars in deficit over the four years that the Liberal Party is in power.

They have admitted that he budget will never be balanced. What hypocrisy and what a lack of respect for the Canadians who trusted them. That is unacceptable, but we are stuck with them for the next two years. We will live with the situation, but everyone needs to know that we, as the opposition, will be doing our work.

They promised transparency and a new way of governing. Wow! The Minister of Finance acts like a king who thinks he is above the law. He states that he created a blind trust for his company in which he has shares, Morneau Sheppell. It took two years and hard work by the opposition to make the minister take action. A few weeks ago, with assistance from the commissioner, he was able to understand the form, deposit his assets and opt for a blind trust. You have to take people for… I will not finish that sentence. People at home are able to finish it.

He tabled a law regarding pension plans for Canadians. Until recently, he was a shareholder in Morneau Sheppell. We know what Morneau Sheppell does: the company manages pension plans. So he is both judge and jury. Indeed, he establishes a law and his fellow shareholders and colleagues benefit from that law. How much money does the Finance Minister receive—I am not talking about his salary as a parliamentarian—as a shareholder in Morneau Sheppell? He receives $65,000 per month.

Let us not forget his villa in Europe and the numerous companies we keep pestering him about because we want to know exactly what they are about. It is because we suspect that the Minister of Finance has other sources of revenue. He is giving us no reason to think otherwise.

If he does not want to come completely clean, that is his choice, but until he does so, some doubt will always linger. We live in a democracy, not a dictatorship. The minister and his Prime Minister are not above the law. They have no right to take advantage of honest Canadians. That will conclude my opening remarks.

I will now focus on Bill C-63, an omnibus bill. Last week, my colleague for Carleton asked the Speaker for an analysis of Standing Order 69.1 introduced by the Liberals last June. I will read it to make sure everyone understands:

(1) In the case where a government bill seeks to repeal, amend or enact more than one act, and where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked, the Speaker shall have the power to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting, on the motion for second reading and reference to a committee and the motion for third reading and passage of the bill. The Speaker shall have the power to combine clauses of the bill thematically and to put the aforementioned questions on each of these groups of clauses separately, provided that there will be a single debate at each stage.

This government has hidden a lot of things its Bill C-63. In June the Liberals put in place regulations, but they are not even able to manage the application of a regulation they implemented three months earlier. They are all mixed up in the management of a regulation. Imagine how the government manages finances.

We can also talk about the Asian Bank. The March 2017 budget presentation announced $256 million for the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. In today’s bill, however, we see that it is instead $375 million U.S. After converting, that gives $480 million Canadian. No problem, they will spend recklessly and then try to take money out of the pockets of middle-class Canadians. In other words, the omnibus budget implementation bill proposes something that was not originally provided for. As a result, Mr. Speaker, you have the authority to split the components of the bill.

The other problem is that the extra $224 million is being invested in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank instead of the Canada infrastructure bank. We are investing that money in a bank in Asia. That is one way of looking at things. This inconsistent and irresponsible government is spending recklessly.

The Fraser Institute confirmed that over 80% of middle-class families pay more taxes than they paid under the Harper government. Wow. They say one thing and put money in one pocket, but they take twice as much out of the other pocket. More money is being taken from middle-class Canadians. That statement is not from the Minister of Finance, it is from the Fraser Institute, which I trust.

In closing, I cannot give my vote of confidence to this government and its finance minister, who is determined to tell honest Canadians that he is a man worthy of his office. In my opinion, a finance minister must be above any doubt or reproach regarding credibility and integrity. He must comply with the law and be whiter than white. This finance minister, however, is very grey, bordering on black.

I would encourage the Minister of Finance, our national Superman, to come back to reality and to be sensible in managing Canada’s public finances.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the consistent comments we get from the Conservative opposition is concern about the deficit. It is important to realize a bit of the history of deficits. When Stephen Harper was prime minister, he inherited a multi-billion dollar surplus and turned it into a multi-billion dollar deficit, even before the Canadian recession got under way. Year after year, the Harper government had nothing but deficit after deficit. In fact, I suspect we would find that the Harper government accumulated more in those annual deficits than in the history of any other prime minister, in terms of real dollars.

Given how disastrous the Harper government was in dealing with the deficit, why should any government take advice from a Conservative government that did so poorly and generated so little in terms of actual economic activity, especially compared to what we have done in the last couple of years?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has a very colourful way of speaking. However, speaking in a colourful way does not necessarily guarantee coherence. In 2007, the debt-to-GDP ratio was the lowest ever, and members cannot say whatever they want in the House.

I would like to add that we left the House in order. When we left the government to the Liberals in 2015, there was a surplus. In 2016, there was an $18-billion deficit and, this year, there will be a $20-billion deficit.

We cannot call that responsible government. The government has only been in power for two years. It is unacceptable. I will also mention what the Liberals actually did to hurt Canadians: they eliminated the universal child care benefit; eliminated the child fitness tax credit; eliminated the arts tax credit; eliminated the tax credits for post-secondary education and textbooks; eliminated income splitting; and cancelled the tax break for SMEs. They also reduced the TFSA contribution, cancelled the tax credit for public transportation, and more.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to listen to this discussion. The Liberals are pointing out that the Conservatives ran seven straight deficits in the House between 2008 and 2015, although they did balance the budget in the last year. The Conservatives are yelling at the Liberals about another six to 10 deficits in a row. Listening to the Liberals and the Conservatives accusing each other of running deficits all the time is not very productive. What both parties have in common is that they are not willing to address the fundamental basics of deficits.

Deficits are easy, and Canadians know it. It means that we are spending more money than we are taking in. The Conservatives did it after a recession, so at least they had the economic conditions in which we had to prime the economy from 2008 to 2011. The Liberals are going into deficit when the economy is firing on all cylinders. Traditional Keynesian thinking would be that a government runs deficits in poor economic times and pays down those deficits in good economic times. I am not sure what economic philosophy the Liberals are following. The bottom line is that a government has to have its revenue match its expenditures.

Would my hon. colleague suggest that the government cut spending right now, or would he agree with New Democrats and say that we have to raise some revenue, in an equitable manner, maybe by restoring the corporate income tax up a couple of points so that we can get the budget back in balance by getting more revenue into government?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, who acknowledges that the Conservatives practised sound management during an astronomically serious financial crisis, and that Canada was the first country to recover. Thank you for acknowledging that.

I suggest that we stop spending without a plan. There is always the possibility of running a deficit in a specific context. However, the plan must be to return to a balanced budget. The government must practise responsible management.

Some programs are poorly managed. For example, the clean water and wastewater fund (CWWF) is an infrastructure program. The government is giving municipalities a certain amount of time to make a decision and present their projects. It is closing the window as much as it can. This leads to increased costs. Then, it changes the rules. In my riding, there are municipalities that did not submit projects because they could not satisfy the requirements. The Liberals can extend the program, but they are choking municipalities so that they do not have to pay.

Let us be honest, let us respect our regions and Canadians in general, and let us practise sound management of the country’s budget.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, the Environment; the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, National Defence; the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan, Public Services and Procurement.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today about Bill C-63, the budget implementation act, No. 2.

This bill includes key measures of our government’s second budget, which will create jobs, grow our economy, and provide all Canadians with more opportunities for success.

Before I move into the details of Bill C-63, I would like to provide a brief update on the strength of the economy as we reach the midpoint of our mandate.

In 2015, we assumed office in the wake of 10 long years of a Conservative government that had run multiple deficits, despite promises to the contrary; that had cut essential services, despite the needs of hard-working Canadians; and that had led to the weakest economic performance since the Great Depression, despite claims of being a champion of growth.

Over the last two years we have turned it around, thanks to some smart investments, which have included lowering taxes for nine million Canadians; creating the Canada child benefit plan that is putting more money in the pockets of nine out of 10 families, an average of $2,300 per family, and lifting approximately 300,000 children out of poverty; making enhancements to CPP, OAS, and GIS, all of which is improving retirement security and the quality of life for seniors; adding scholarships, bursaries, debt relief, and training for students in adult learning; and creating a national strategy on innovation and climate change to foster a competitive and sustainable economy.

When we take the cumulative effect of these measures and add them to the $180 billion we have earmarked for infrastructure spending to build better transit, roads, bridges, and clean water initiatives, we see concrete evidence of an economy that is heating up. Specifically, unemployment has dropped from 7.1% to 6.2%, the lowest since 2008. The debt-to-GDP ratio is forecast to drop below 3.1% this year, the lowest in nearly 40 years, on the way to and over the next five years. Half a million jobs have been created since we were elected, the best record in over 14 years. Together these indicators demonstrate how, in just two years, we took a workforce that was sluggish and underperforming and transformed it into the fastest growing economy in the G7, with an average of 3.7% GDP growth over the last four quarters. These results are ones that every member in this House should celebrate.

To keep the momentum going with regard to our economic performance, we are proposing a number of additional measures in this bill, which represents the second phase of the budget implementation act for 2017. Let me highlight a number of those now.

I will start with the measures to support the middle class and those working hard to join it.

This budget implementation act protects the rights of federally regulated workers when they request flexible work arrangements from their employers. Flexible work arrangements include flexible start and finish times, the ability to work from home, and new unpaid leave to help employees manage their family responsibilities. These work arrangements benefit many women who continue to do the majority of unpaid work in the home.

Budget 2017 was the first budget in Canada's history to include a gender statement. It seeks to present a frank and honest analysis of the impact the budgetary measures will have on women. In addition, in its fall economic statement, the government announced that it would strengthen the Canada child benefit by indexing it to annual increases in the cost of living effective July 2018, which is two years earlier than planned.

What this means, in practical terms, is that for a single parent with two children and income of $35,000 the Canada child benefit will contribute an additional $560 in the 2019-20 benefit year towards the cost of raising his or her children.

Beyond strengthening the Canada child benefit, starting in 2019 we will also add $500 million to the working income tax benefit, sometimes referred to as the WITB. This will put more money in the pockets of low-income workers, including families without children and the growing number of single Canadians. These two actions alone will boost the total amount the government spends on the WITB by about 65% in 2019, increasing benefits to current recipients and expanding the number of Canadians receiving this support, which is essential for those who need it the most.

Finally, our government is going to help small and medium-sized businesses by lowering their tax from 10.5% to 9%, effective January 1, 2018, and then again January 1, 2019. This will provide a small business with up to $7,500 per year in corporate tax savings to reinvest in and grow its business. These kinds of savings are crucial for small business to grow, which is the engine of our economy.

The steps taken to date are having a positive impact on our economy and for all Canadians. Optimism is on the rise, and with good reason. Job creation is strong. As I said, there have been 500,000 new jobs created in the last two years, most of them full-time.

Growing the Canadian economy helps the government improve its record. Canada's financial situation remains solid, and the government will see to keeping the debt-to-GDP ratio on its downward trend.

Every Canadian deserves to benefit from this economic growth. The government has lowered taxes for middle-class Canadians and has committed to ensuring that the tax system does not offer unintended benefits to the wealthiest Canadians or those with high incomes.

For all these reasons, I urge all hon. members to vote for this bill that will benefit all Canadians.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the parliamentary secretary in his role in justice. I am deeply concerned about the lack of access to justice by Canadians. We heard a major report on CBC today about how many people are having to represent themselves in court, causing further delays in the judicial process and ending with some serious cases being dropped that should proceed.

In my province of Alberta, even though the provincial budget may be stressed for dollars, it has increased legal aid, yet in this budget, we see no increase whatsoever for legal aid so that all Canadians can have access to justice, including middle-class families.

Can the member speak to that and to why this budget update does not include additional monies for legal aid, which is a pressing need in the country?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying how proud I am of the work the Minister of Justice is doing on this side of the House to advance access to justice. She is doing so in several concrete ways. First, with regard to our judicial appointments process, we renewed that process so it would be open, transparent, and focused on merit-based appointments. In the last two years, we have appointed 130 judges. In my hon. colleague's province, I am very proud to tell her that she has received 19 new federal judges since we have taken office. These are extremely capable and well-respected individuals who reflect the best this country has to offer. Simply by having them on the bench, we are enhancing justice.

We are also providing additional training. We have topped up legal aid in the last two years. We are running two pilot projects on providing additional legal services and advice to victims of sexual assault so they can have access and have their day in court. All these things together are speeding up trials and enhancing access to justice.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the key promises the Liberals made in 2015, before they were in government, was to invest $120 billion in infrastructure. The Conservative Party supported the idea from the get-go; indeed, it ran the largest infrastructure program in Canada when Mr. Lebel headed the infrastructure department. This program had planned investments totalling $80 billion, which was unprecedented in Canada.

That said, what I find interesting is that, today, two years after the election, very rarely do we hear about a specific project benefiting from the $120 billion that have supposedly been invested since 2015.

I wonder if my colleague is able to name a single project in a single province that has benefited from this $120-billion investment in infrastructure.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I thank the member for his question, Mr. Speaker.

We are no longer at $120 billion; since we have increased our investments in infrastructure, we are now at $180 billion. Among others, these investments are funding projects in Montreal, Quebec, aimed at expanding and improving public transit. This is great news for the people of Montreal and Quebec.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, in the member's last response, he talked about services to Canadians.

Canadians have benefited from the Canada child benefit, seniors from the guaranteed income supplement, and WITB gives the most vulnerable Canadians more money in their pockets. However, it is on the services to Canadians, where we saw the past government cut jobs in EI processing and call centres, and the Phoenix fiasco that began with the 700 jobs cut from payroll departments, that I would like a comment.

Can my colleague comment on where those reinvestments are being made in the public sector, so that Canadians can get the services they expect and deserve?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague, who is a role model for every member on this side, for his thoughtful question.

In short order, one of the ways we are reinvesting in the public sector is by showing good faith when it comes to collective bargaining. The Conservative opposition spent 10 years eroding labour rights. On this side of the House, we believe in every single member of the public service who provides world-class service to Canadians.

I want to thank the hon. member for all of the work he does in that portfolio.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise in the House to discuss Bill C-63, which arises from the budget, of course. On March 22 the Minister of Finance introduced his second budget, which basically seeks to create growth for the middle class and those who work hard to join it.

The idea is very simple: when we lend a helping hand to our fellow citizens in need, the whole society benefits. Lowering the income tax rate for the middle class was the first thing we did when we came to Ottawa. That was a tax cut for 9 million Canadians.

The official opposition party, who supposedly is the champion of taxpayers, voted against that initiative. Today we can perhaps see why: the Conservatives voted against that initiative possibly because we also raised the income tax rate on the wealthy.

The second measure we put in place to ensure more inclusive growth in Canada was the Canada child benefit. Again, the principle is very simple: those who need it more will get more help, and those who need it less will get less help. The previous approach from the Conservatives was to send cheques to millionaires. No matter one's revenue, everyone got the same cheque. To add insult to injury, they made it taxable. In Conservative la-la land, the principle of equity simply does not exist.

Under our plan, almost 18,000 children benefited from the Canada child benefit in Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, which is my riding. Families received an average payment of $510, which is non-taxable. The Canada child benefit directly impacts families and local businesses in Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.

The official opposition likes to talk the talk on defending the taxpayer, but when it comes to walking the walk, well, they voted against our plan and in favour of a plan that would tax families, which they still defend to this day. I would like to see them quote that particular impact in the Fraser report.

The question is on whether this plan is working. The answer is yes. The unemployment rate in eastern Ontario in September 2015 was 8.7%. Today, it is almost 2% lower, at 6.8%. The economy in Canada has added more than 500,000 jobs in less than two years. We have the lowest unemployment rate since 2008, and our economy is growing faster than any of the G7 countries.

This year, GDP growth will be 3.7%. This better-than-expected rate of growth means that the government will be able to index the Canada child benefit two years ahead of our original plan. That will mean an increase of $560 a year for a mother with two children who earns $35,000. We know that this will directly contribute to our country's economic growth. We are not the ones saying that. It is the Governor of the Bank of Canada.

What is more, we are enhancing the working income tax benefit by $500 million as of 2019. That is another measure that will have a significant impact on workers in my region. We are able to implement these measures because of our strong economic growth, and we are doing so while ensuring that the debt-to-GDP ratio continues to drop.

I would like to take a few moments to talk about the reason why we decided to carefully invest rather than make cuts. We cannot talk about deficits without mentioning the infrastructure deficit in Canada. None of the mayors in my riding are asking the government to cut infrastructure programs. This year, for the first time ever, the community of Maxville will finally have access to water thanks to a federal investment of $15 million. That is going to make a real difference in the lives of Maxville residents.

What is more, there has been talk about expanding Highway 17/174 for 40 years. With the announcement of light rail, $50 million will be allocated to build the interchange at the intersection of Highway 174 and Trim Road. This will have a direct impact on people who commute to Ottawa and on those who will be travelling to Trim station to take the train. More work remains to be done, but this is a step in the right direction.

I could name other infrastructure projects in Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, but the point is that there is tremendous need for our communities. As I have said before, not a single mayor is asking me to cut funding towards infrastructure.

What is the legacy we want to leave to our children and our children's children? We could balance the budget at all cost and kick the can down the road for major repairs to infrastructure, or we could own up to our responsibilities and reduce the infrastructure deficit so that our children and our children's children can benefit down the road. I choose the latter approach, because it is the responsible approach. If we have a leaky roof, we cannot simply balance the family budget in the hopes that the leaky roof will go away. We must take responsibility.

We are doing this because although the Conservatives supposedly balanced the budget during their 10 years in office, they did so by ducking their responsibilities towards our municipalities. “Too bad, so sad” was their refrain as they told our municipalities that their citizens would have to wait for clean drinking water and that fixed-income seniors, the most vulnerable members of our society, would have to wait for social housing. However, the fact that we have an aging population did not come out of nowhere. We need to make sure that the decisions we make today have an impact on tomorrow.

That is why I am proud that we are investing $11.9 billion in social housing. These investments will help seniors, single mothers, and women in domestic violence situations. We know that one of the barriers women face in trying to leave an abusive relationship is a lack of housing. Incidentally, I would like to thank the Centre Novas, which continues to advocate for the most vulnerable women in Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.

This goal is within reach, because we have chosen the path of investment and growth. Our track record on growth is good, the best in the G7, but we need to keep the momentum going.

The more our companies prosper, the better it is for our economy. In order to spur that growth, we are investing $400 million over three years in a venture capital catalyst initiative that will help young businesses scale up to the next level. With leveraged funds from the private sector, we could be looking at a $1.5 billion injection into our economy.

We will also honour our promise to our small businesses to lower taxes to 9%, down from 10.5%, by 2019. This will leave more money in the pockets of our entrepreneurs, so they can in turn invest it in their businesses.

In closing, Bill C-63 to implement certain provisions of the budget supports the growth of the middle class and helps those working hard to join it. The tax cut for the middle class, the Canada child benefit, the improvement of the Canada pension plan, the investments in our sewer systems and social housing, the tax cut for small and medium-sized businesses, the working income tax benefit, the improvement of the guaranteed income supplement—all of these measures help the middle class and those working hard to join it. Strengthening this class will benefit society as a whole, and I am proud to support this bill.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Glengarry—Prescott—Russell attacked us a bit in his speech when he said that the Conservatives had forgotten the municipalities. That is a bit rich because when we were in government, following the recession, we set in motion the economic recovery plan that allowed every municipality in Canada to benefit from an $85-billion infrastructure plan that did not include a portion for social housing. It was entirely for municipal infrastructure such as bridges and waterworks.

By the end of that economic recovery, we had the highest job creation rate in the G7 with 1.2 million jobs created. How does the hon. member explain his government's decision for the past two years and especially in the past few weeks to do away with the regional development minister position for good?

How does that reflect any respect for the municipalities in Canada's rural regions?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would put it to my colleague that we gave power back to the members of Parliament. In his province of Quebec, it is the role of Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions, and in mine, FedDev is still the one investing. No one has lost their voice. In fact, I made several announcements aimed at helping several businesses in my province. We do not need a minister. All members have a voice in cabinet. They have only to speak to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development. I am certain that he would be most attentive to Quebec's concerns.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to what my colleague said he liked about the budget. My question concerns something that, surprisingly, is not in the budget. During the last two election campaigns in 2011 and 2015, the Liberals were very firm in their promise to cap the amount that can be claimed through the stock option deduction. Tax fairness is actually quite important to the middle class everyone keeps talking about. The Liberals repeatedly promised to address this perceived iniquity, and yet, they went back on their promise as soon as they came to power.

My question for my colleague is as follows. Why did the government decide to renege on its promise to close a tax loophole that only benefits wealthy CEOs?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

First, Mr. Speaker, stock options do not only benefit wealthy CEOs. They also benefit start-ups. Sometimes, it is the only option they can give investors. I like that the hon. member reminded us of the promises we made during the election, because I, too, remember a promise the NDP made during the same period, which was to balance the budget. Today, the New Democrats are saying that they want us to invest more in the fight against tax evasion, although we have already invested more than $1 billion. I wonder how the NDP would go about investing more while still balancing the budget. Perhaps we should ask the new leader of the NDP, as we are unsure what his position is. Will he balance the budget at all cost, or will he decide to invest?

[Pat Finnigan, Liberal, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Earlier, Mr. Speaker, we heard our colleague opposite speak of the recession that happened when his party formed the government. Back then, revenues were at an all-time high. Oil was selling at $110 a barrel. All of these resources boosted revenues. Now that oil is selling at $40 or $50 a barrel, sound management was needed in order to provide Canadians all of the benefits we have been able to offer. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I could not agree more, Mr. Speaker, and would like to thank my colleague for his fine question. Indeed, the Conservatives often talk about how they only went into deficit during the recession, and yet, the recession happened in 2008-09, and the largest deficit in the history of Canada was recorded in 2010. It had reached $62.5 billion. The Liberals are not even close to that number yet. We have decided to invest in infrastructure because that is what every municipality has asked us to do. As I said earlier, I have yet to meet a mayor who has asked us to stop investing in infrastructure and to stop offering support. We have not gotten that request from a single mayor.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, hon. colleagues, dear Canadians who are watching us, I just want to say, “wow”. One hundred and fifty years ago, on November 6, 1867, the first Canadian parliamentarians from Upper Canada and Lower Canada, as well as the colonies of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Nova Scotia, gathered here in a federal Parliament for the first time. It was surely to have a debate, but I imagine that first day must have been rather solemn. I do not know if they started any work that first day. I imagine they wanted to get started right away on working hard to build a federation from coast to coast. It must have been extraordinary to take part in achieving that dream.

I wanted to take a minute or two to say that I agree with what my leader said about his vision of the country, and his take on the parliamentary system and the role of parliamentarians. I was impressed by his speech.

Certainly, I want to thank the Prime Minister for taking the time to deliver a speech on this solemn day. I also found it extraordinary that four former prime ministers were here today. I appreciated the speech of the House leader of the New Democratic Party and that of the Bloc Québécois member who took the time to say a few words despite his opposition to our great federation.

I am more mature now as I begin my third year as MP than I was at the very beginning. There are three things I consider important and that I would like to bring back to the Canadian political agenda. If I come to Ottawa every week, it is not to talk about rights but about duty. It is not to talk about about pride, but about honour. More importantly, it is not to talk about entitlements but about each individual's responsibility and their role in community development.

Guided by these three beacons that shape my approach to parliamentarism and Canadian politics, I come here each week in an attempt to improve things in this country, even only a little bit.

I would like nothing more than to be able to speak at length in this House about the Constitution of Canada, the role of the provinces in our constitutional order and the dialogue that Philippe Couillard would like to open about Quebec's place in Canada.

I would like to talk about our founding peoples, linguistic rights, creating new provinces to pursue Canada's territorial and economic expansion, as well as international relations and Canada's role in the 21st century in light of all the world's emerging powers on all continents who are challenging us in ever more extreme ways. I would also like us to discuss our vision of federalism for the hundred years to come.

However, I cannot talk about that today, as the government is busy introducing a bill to confirm and put in place the budgetary measures which were announced in March, as is the custom in this great Parliament.

We returned to the House two months ago, but we have not touched on the constitutional debates and the international relations debates I talked about, debates I would really like us to have here. This all started in July, when the government put forward its tax reforms, which amounted to tax hikes for small and medium-sized businesses. It really botched those reforms. Just two weeks ago, the Minister of Finance presented his economic update. He tried to convince us that his tax reforms are working well and that he merely adjusted a few elements of it in response to what he heard from Canadians.

Simply put, the tax reform is a thing of the past. It is moot. The government backtracked thanks to some very good work by the official opposition of Canada and our leader, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. Every sitting day from September to November, our leader proved to Canadians that the tax reform benefited the rich, those who want to avoid paying taxes, and, it bears mentioning, even the Minister of Finance, as we all know. The whole thing is absolutely unbelievable.

The reform benefits the rich rather than ordinary Canadians—the workers, the mechanics, the labourers, the farmers. The Liberal economic update is merely a repeat of the same measures and broken promises we have seen from the beginning of their mandate in 2015. The only thing that is new is that they are going to lower the overall tax rate for small and medium-sized business.

Once again, that was nothing really new, since the Liberals had announced it during the campaign. They first decided not to keep that promise, but faced with the political uproar created by their ethical scandal, they thought they might present a gift to shift the media's focus. It did not work.

Then, at the end of September, the scandal linked to the finance minister himself, personally, was uncovered. This is not a debate about whether this is a good policy, nor is it a debate on the tax measures he wants to bring in. Indeed, thanks to research done by our party and by some investigative journalists, it became clear that the Minister of Finance was in a total conflict of interest, both personally and with respect to his significant financial assets. He made his fortune by working very hard, good for him.

According to the Liberal members, Morneau Shepell, and the government, everyone believed that the Minister of Finance had taken his fortune, including the $20 million he owned in Morneau Shepell shares, and placed it in a blind trust back in 2015. That was not the case. For the past month, I have been expecting him to stand up in the House and make a formal apology. In the end, he made a donation to charity, which is nice, but he has yet to apologize to Canadians.

We have been talking about this issue for a month and a half. There was also the property in France, which he hid from the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, as well as Bill C-27, which directly benefits his family business, Morneau Shepell. The proof is right in front of us: the Minister of Finance is in a direct conflict of interest. He has yet to apologize to Canadians.

Yesterday, it emerged that the Liberal Party of Canada's own chief fundraiser is implicated in tax avoidance schemes involving tropical tax havens south of here. The news has made this government even more of a laughingstock.

Today, on this 150th anniversary of the first parliamentary sitting of November 6, 1867, four former prime ministers, unfortunately, had to witness a question period that I found to be shameful and that did not focus on the issues that we should be discussing. As I said, we should be discussing the Canadian federation, the coming century, and how to always strive to make Canada the best country in the world.

Instead, we are talking about this government's hypocrisy. We are talking about the things it does that create conflicts of interest. In short, we are talking about its real intentions, which are to help interest groups, not Canadians. These interest groups, whatever their cause, may be chartist groups that go through the Supreme Court to impose new policies on our country rather than coming and fighting in the House, economic interest groups, like the finance minister and his Bill C-27, or groups that fight for the government's own party. What is worse, the Liberals are shamelessly claiming that theirs is a feminist budget. I have never heard anything so ridiculous in my life. Well, perhaps that is a bit of an exaggeration, but even so. This should not be a feminist budget. It should be a Canadian budget for all Canadians.

Since when does a government have the nerve to rise in the House and claim that a budget has been put in place for a particular group, to cater to a certain ideology or stripe, or individual interests? How does this government have the nerve to talk about a feminist budget? What would happen if it was a masculinist budget? It is completely ridiculous.

What have the Liberals done in the past two years? They have eliminated tax credit after tax credit, to the point where, according the Fraser Institute, a typical Canadian family with two children is now paying $840 more in taxes a year.

It is unprecedented in Canada for a government to run a deficit that is double what was promised with no plan to balance the budget. That is the Liberal government.

Rather than celebrating the Constitution on this 150th anniversary, we are celebrating the Liberals' hypocrisy.