Debates of Nov. 6th, 2017

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Usually we let members direct their comments as they see fit. It may seem that they are taking a different direction, but they usually come back to the relevant subject. I will let the member for Shefford continue and I am sure his speech will be very interesting.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was just saying that the unemployment rate has dropped steadily and is now at 4.1%. That is a 40-year low.

Massive job creation and the Canada child benefit are boosting consumer confidence. This key measure, which is more focused and more generous than previous benefits, has channelled $115 million into my riding since July 2016. That tax-free money was distributed to 22,000 children in my riding. It has put more money in the pockets of 15,000 families so they can invest in their children, enabling them to participate in sports, arts, ballet, and more.

At the same time, the middle-class tax cut and major infrastructure investments have helped support and grow my riding's economy. Our government is funding a new aquatic centre in Shefford. This major infrastructure project will enrich the daily lives of people in my community while creating economic growth and well-paid middle-class jobs. Other parts of my riding are benefiting too. There is going to be a bike path in Waterloo, cultural events in Valcourt, a community centre in Rougemont, water and waste water infrastructure in Ange-Gardien, and so much more.

I also want to convey to everyone in my riding and indeed to all Canadians that the two budgets tabled by our government are working and producing meaningful results in creating jobs, strengthening the middle class, and helping others to join it. For two years now, our government has worked tirelessly to boost the economy and improve the financial situation of Canadians who could use some support.

One measure that I am particularly proud of is how we improved income security for low-income seniors. Canadian seniors who live alone and are the most vulnerable could receive up to $947 more annually in the guaranteed income supplement top-up benefit. Thus, our government is improving the financial security of 900,000 seniors across the country, including 3,000 in my riding.

Another key measure was the increase in the student grant program, which will allow students to focus on their studies and continue working hard to realize their dreams without having to worry about student debt. We have increased Canada student grant amounts by 50%, thereby helping over 350,000 students in Canada. On the heels of budget 2016, budget 2017 offers immediate help to those who need it most and helps guarantee everyone a real and fair chance of success.

More specifically, budget 2017 is part of the government's ambitious plan to make smart investments that will create jobs, grow our economy, and provide more opportunities for the middle class and those working hard to join it. It puts the skilled, talented, and creative people of Canada right at the heart of a more innovative economy of the future, an economy that will create jobs for the middle class of today and tomorrow.

I want to stress the fact that the investments that our government has made in people, our communities, and our economy are working. Among the G7 countries, Canada's economy is growing the fastest, and we are reinvesting the profits from that growth into the people who are contributing the most to this success. Thanks to this solid economic growth, the government has enjoyed better results and has been able to do more to help people in the middle class. For example, we kept our promise to lower the small business tax rate. The rate that was 11% in 2015 will drop to 9% in 2019.

Small businesses are key to growing our economy. We are committed to giving them full support to grow, invest, and create stable, well-paying jobs for the middle class. We also enhanced the Canada pension plan.

In that vein, I applaud the Quebec government's initiative, which adapts the Canadian formula to Quebec society. The Canada pension plan will get a boost from coast to coast to coast thanks to the Government of Canada's efforts.

This means young workers and young families can rest assured that they will have a better and more secure retirement. What they save now will be returned to them at the end of their working lives.

Of course, there is also the working income tax benefit. Just like everywhere else, some people have trouble getting off social assistance. They find it difficult to choose between getting back into the job market and continuing to receive social assistance. The measures we just announced will enhance this tax credit, which will make it easier for people to choose to go back to work, get back into the job market, and contribute more to society because they know they will get a tax credit, they know the federal government supports them, and they know that, financially, going back to work makes sense.

The budget implementation act we are debating today has the same objectives as previously stated, namely to grow our economy and to support the middle class and those working hard to join it. For example, more flexible work arrangements are being provided to federally regulated employees in order to help them balance their work and personal responsibilities. In practical terms, this measure will ensure they have more flexibility to take vacation and other annual leaves, such as up to 10 days of bereavement leave to deal with the loss of a loved one. There would also be more flexibility in granting unpaid leave for employees to manage various family responsibilities. Through those measures, the government is showing compassion and taking concrete steps to make life easier for hard-working people.

Students are not being forgotten. In my riding of Shefford, 160 organizations received $1.2 million over the last two years, to create 380 jobs. That is a major achievement.

Budget implementation act, 2017, No. 2 will also enable us to pursue our innovation and skills plan through an investment of $600 million in clean technologies and businesses.

It is an honour for me to be part of a government that works very hard to strengthen the middle class, grow the economy, and help families in tangible ways. I am convinced that our budget is excellent for my constituents. They give me confirmation of that every day. On their behalf, I congratulate the government and acknowledge the thousands of constituents in my riding who put their trust in me.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned near the end of his remarks that the budget is good for the middle class. A recent study has shown that 81% of middle-class families are paying more taxes now than they were two years ago, when the government took office. The average middle-class family is currently paying $840 more in tax than it did two years ago.

I want to ask my colleague the same question I asked a colleague earlier, who sort of skirted around the answer. Why would the government, through the budget implementation act, be investing millions of dollars in an infrastructure bank that would benefit Asians but would take money from middle-class families in Canada to pay those taxes? How does investing in infrastructure in Asia help middle-class families in Canada? In fact, it would hurt them by making them pay for something they will never get to use.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to respond to the preamble of my colleague's question.

Here are the facts. We lowered taxes for middle-class Canadians as soon as we took office in 2015. That was an important measure that we wanted to put in place, and we kept our promise. We also created the Canada child benefit, a historic measure for Canadian families. It puts extra money in the pockets of Canadians. On average, families receive $540 per child. These measures are better targeted, more generous, and tax free.

I would like to remind my colleague that, just recently, we lowered taxes for small businesses. It was a first step. Next year, in 2018, we will lower them again. Finally, in 2019, the small business tax rate will be 9%.

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

Mr. Speaker, by way of information, the riding of Shefford, which my colleague represents, is next door to Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, which means that we share some realities. For example, the agrifood sector is important to the economic development of both our ridings.

As it has been said several times since the beginning of this debate, the problem with this budget is what is missing from it. Since I was elected, people in the agrifood industry have been asking me why there is nothing for them in the budget and why the government is not thinking of them. The only mention of the agrifood industry in the last budget was when the Minister of Finance said that he discovered during the consultations that the agrifood industry was an important economic sector. At least he recognized that.

For their part, milk producers ask me why they are not getting any real compensation for the losses they will incur when 17.7 tonnes of European cheese appears on the market. They are asking me why the export permits were shared among processors and distributors. They want to know why they only got a small innovation program which was used up in a week. People from supply-managed sectors constantly ask me why the budget does not contain any strong measure which would show that their sector will really be protected and that the government is not only paying lip service to supply management. That is what I am worried about.

The fact is that the member mentioned not a single measure in his speech. We would have known if he had, because we would have heard him promote it to his riding's agrifood sector. Why did he not do so?

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, who represents a riding which borders mine. It is always a pleasure to talk with her.

The government is fully committed to protecting supply management, since it is a priority for us. As my colleague said, we are strongly in favour of supply management. That said, 350 million dollars were made available for the agrifood sector in Canada, including 250 million dollars for agricultural producers and 100 million dollars for processors. I think it is an excellent measure which helps them innovate and increase productivity on their farms.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am always pleased to rise in the House, especially to speak to the fall economic statement.

I want to begin by thanking my leader for the excellent speech he gave today for the 150th anniversary of what we have become. He demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is a statesman. I am very proud to stand side by side with him. He is a great man.

Let us talk about the fall economic statement. This fall, we were treated to even more scandals. Unfortunately, I think that the Minister of Finance has lost the confidence of the House. He should have done the right thing. He is responsible for the country's finances, but he hides his assets from Canadians. Every member is required to declare all their assets to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner within 90 days, but it took him two years to do so. It is unbelievable and very troubling. We have been asking questions for over a month, but as everyone likes to say, it is question period not answer period. We have yet to get an answer from across the way.

Yesterday, we learned of the existence of the Paradise Papers. Who is named in these papers? The Liberals' friends. If anyone was wondering if the Liberals learned anything during their 10 years in purgatory, the answer is probably not.

At the time of the Gomery commission, I was working at the National Assembly and had friends who worked for the Liberal Party. Today, those friends say that the more things change, the more they stay the same. It saddens me, because they used to be staunch Liberals, and they lost their jobs because of the Gomery commission. I believe that the more we dig, the closer we get to a second Gomery commission. That would be sad.

I liked what my NDP colleague said about the fall economic statement, that the most striking thing about it is what it does not say. It has nothing to say about farmers. They are not mentioned at all. They got $250 million, far less than we Conservatives had promised them. Let us talk about that $250 million. Within a week, there was not a cent left. Farmers are still coming to see us at our constituency offices because they do not understand why this program only lasted five days. I do not understand it either.

The 9% tax cut the member opposite was talking about is all well and good, but it was not even the Liberals' idea. It was Stephen Harper's government that wanted to do that 9% tax cut. They took that idea from the Conservatives and put it out there as their own. That is what bothers me. It is one thing for them to come up with their own ideas, but I would like them to be honest and say that this was not their idea. They have set themselves up as saviours, but they stole that idea from the Conservatives because they could not come up with an idea of their own. That is pathetic.

The Liberals have to look at other parties' platforms to come up with their own. Maybe they should give that some thought, because what we are seeing nowadays is pretty pathetic.

What saddens me is that the more things change over there, the more they stay the same. I am not saying there is nothing good in Bill C-63. Some things in it are good, but many more are bad. The Liberals should have split the bill in two so we could vote on the parts that make sense. As it whole, it does not make sense.

I will not vote in favour of a bill that does not give Canadians the truth. We are getting used to this now because the Liberals are often all about the smoke and mirrors, but dig a little deeper, and things start to not make sense. It is sad because this is no longer the Liberal Party of Canada; it is a one-man party, the Prime Minister's party. His selfies are all over the place. I am sure Canadians are picking up a hefty tab for all those photos. I think that is a real shame.

The Liberals are claiming these are the facts, but that cannot be entirely true; either that or there are still things we do not know, because the parliamentary budget officer, or PBO, is saying exactly the opposite. He is saying that over 80% of middle-class Canadians are paying more tax than before. This statistic comes from the PBO, not us, and the Liberals over there are trying to tell us that that is not actually true.

We are used to seeing the Liberal Party give with one hand and take away with the other, but one day they are going to have to be consistent. If they cannot come up with sensible tax breaks of their own, they are going to have to stop pretending that they have. They are taking things from another party's election platform because they are unable to keep up with the times.

What saddens me most is that the Liberals are not listening to Canadians. They travelled around a lot. They did a bunch of consultations, but they did not listen to anyone they consulted. The same thing happened with small businesses. The official opposition parties had to rise in the House and organize round tables for the Liberals to realize they were headed in the wrong direction. People had to badger and hurl questions at them for three straight weeks before the Liberals finally came to the realization that what they were doing made no sense.

For three weeks now, practically a whole month, we have been asking questions about the finance minister's ethics. The finance minister is the one who manages Canadians' money, and yet he cannot even answer our questions, even now that the Paradise Papers scandal has erupted. There will come a point where the more newly elected Liberals, who were not around for Gomery and who certainly do not want to end up in a similar situation, will have to start asking questions. Perhaps they will get more answers than we have been getting.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague across the way for her speech. She is also a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food, and I thank her for her excellent work.

My colleague said that we stole their ideas. It is all well and good to have an idea, but putting it into action is another thing altogether. I think the government should be very proud of doing that successfully.

I have a question for my colleague regarding our budget and the great things we have done. Take summer jobs for example. Last summer, I had the opportunity to travel around my riding and meet with students and employers. They had good things to say, since we doubled the number of jobs.

I would like to ask my colleague if she had an opportunity to travel around her riding and hear from students and employers, knowing that we doubled the number of jobs.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to answer my colleague, yes, I like to travel around a lot, too. I am a grassroots politician. It did some good, but at what price? One has to think about that.

When you say that, yes, we are the ones who thought of that, I would point out that, two years ago, you were the ones elected. It was already in our platform and that is what we would have done, but we were not elected. You were.

Before saying something and taking someone else's ideas, you should have thought about it first. You did not think about it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I would like to remind the member to address the Chair. I am sure that she was talking to the members opposite and not to the Speaker of the House.

The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

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

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

We have talked a lot about spending today. My question is about the income we are depriving ourselves of. The member ended her speech by talking about the Paradise Papers.

Does she believe that the government should be much more aggressive in combatting tax evasion? The people in my riding talk to me about this. They do not believe that everyone is paying their fair share.

One Thursday evening in January, 70 people came to my office to watch a one and a half hour documentary on tax havens called The Price We Pay, which, by the way, is an excellent Quebec documentary. We should be proud of Brigitte Alepin, Harold Crooks, and Alain Deneault, who have been documenting the situation with tax havens for so many years.

We need to do something. Right now, we are leaving billions of dollars in other countries because we do not have any real measures to combat tax havens. The government may well have voted in favour of the motion the NDP moved in the spring, but a month later, it was signing a new agreement with another tax haven.

My question for my colleague is as follows. Do we need to ask the government to be more aggressive in combatting tax evasion? The answer we have been given by the Minister of National Revenue is that the investigators are looking into the situation and that the government has allocated $1 billion to combat tax evasion. Today, with the Paradise Papers, we see that they will tell us that what is happening is completely legal.

The laws need to be changed. That is what needs to be done. Does my colleague agree?

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

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

Of course, it is important that Canadians and Quebeckers have the impression that everyone is paying the same kinds of taxes. We often hear that that is not currently their impression. As for tax havens, of course I think we need to address this problem.

Today the Minister of National Revenue often repeated the same answer. However, looking at all the names listed, we saw that they were friends of the Liberals. My advice to the minister would be that she speak to her boss and get a list of his friends. She would also get their phone numbers.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me to rise today to speak to Bill C-63.

This bill is excellent news for my constituents in the riding of Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas and for our ambitious city of Hamilton. Our city properly earned the title of “ambitious city”. It is a city that is on the move, with one of the hottest real estate markets in Canada and one of our city's lowest unemployment rates since 2015. At the heart of Hamilton's success is a new wave of investments from our Liberal government, from the private sector, and, of course, the new wave of entrepreneurship that is happening.

Since the beginning of this government's mandate in 2015, more than 89,000 children in the city of Hamilton have received tax-free payments, equalling a total of $30 million, through the Canada child benefit. That is absolutely fantastic news for middle-class Hamiltonians and it is amazing news for our children. I am proud that our government has worked so tirelessly to help raise these children out of poverty. It gives me immense pride to see that through Bill C-63, we will be strengthening the CCB.

We are reaffirming our belief that by investing in the middle class, we are strengthening and growing Canada's economy, which, by the way, is the fastest growing economy in the G7.

I would like to highlight the provisions in Bill C-63 that put in place measures to give greater flexibility to Canadians working in federally regulated industries to balance work and family responsibilities, such as greater flexibility for annual vacation days and holidays, more bereavement days in the event of losing a loved one, and more unpaid leave for family responsibilities.

Our government recognizes the importance of having strong labour rights for Canadians. One just has to look at our current NAFTA negotiations to see that our government is fighting the good fight for workers' rights. Through Bill C-63, constituents in my riding like Cathy, who works for the CRA, will have improved rights. By providing employees with the right to request flexible work arrangements from their employers, by providing employees with family leave, by providing a leave for victims of family violence, by providing a leave for traditional indigenous practices, and by modifying certain provisions related to work schedules, overtime, annual vacation, general holidays and bereavement leave in order to provide greater flexibility in work arrangements, this government is demonstrating its commitment to our dedicated civil servants. Workers' rights are extremely important to me and my constituents in Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas.

I was recently contacted by a grade 5 student in my riding. Her name is Natalya. She asked me what our government was doing that made me proud. I was delighted that a grade 5 student was reaching out to me, engaged, wanting to know what I felt most proud about with respect to what our government was providing. I was very happy to share with Natalya the many things that our government had done that made me extremely proud. We have a strong record and the strength of the economy is evidence of that.

Today, the provision for workers' rights in Bill C-63 also makes me exceptionally proud. For decades, Canadians and Hamiltonians alike have fought for fair workers' rights and this provision is helping to enhance workers' rights and needs. The provision provides for people in a time of need when they feel most vulnerable and fragile, the loss or sickness of a family member, or the experience of domestic violence. It also acknowledges the importance of indigenous spiritual practice. The bill would help the marginalized as well as recognize indigenous spiritual practices.

Bill C-63 would also make important investments in clean technology. This legislation is going to take the next steps for innovators and creators. Our government's innovation and skills plan focuses on individuals, and addresses the changing nature of the economy to ensure it works for all Canadians.

Bill C-63 would enact key sections of our plan, such as $600 million in new financing for clean technology firms. Our government is also showing that being responsible stewards of the environment that our children will inherit and creating prosperity are not mutually exclusive. Rather, we are proving that being green and growing our economy go hand in hand to create health, wealth, and a prosperity for all Canadians.

Bill C-63 also designates $400 million for the venture capital catalyst initiative. As I mentioned earlier, my beloved city of Hamilton is becoming a Canadian hotbed of innovation and creativity. Indeed, Hamilton is an attractive place to live and start a business. It offers many attractive circumstances to investors and people who wish to move: more affordable housing than its sister cities a short drive east down the QEW; an easily accessible nature trail system that takes one to the most beautiful spots that are largely unspoiled in the Niagara Escarpment, in which Hamilton is nestled; the nearby world-famous Niagara wine region; its three major post-secondary institutions, McMaster, Mohawk, and Redeemer; and the fact that it is a major transit hub. All of these facts mean that Hamilton is home to a rapidly growing number of innovators and creators.

One only has to look at the growing number of start-up incubators and young professional networks that are mushrooming to see that this is true, whether it is Hamilton's innovation factory working with small business people to help them grow, Hamilton HIVE, which is a growing network of young professionals who are succeeding in the business world and teaching young people how to succeed as well; The Forge at McMaster University, which supports new tech companies and students interested in entrepreneurship by providing co-working space at McMaster Innovation Park in downtown Hamilton; other innovation co-working locations like CoMotion 302 or The Seedworks Urban Offices, which are providing space and allowing community start-ups to thrive; or the CoBALT Connects, which is both a network of spaces and people for artists to work and create in.

All of these things show that Hamilton is open for business for start-ups, innovators, and young professionals. The $400-million venture capital provision is outstanding news for them. Our 21st-century economy needs these fire starters and innovators. We need their ideas, their hard work, and their passion.

Let me talk about one of Hamilton's young fire starters. I recently met with Geordie, a McMaster graduate who started his own tech firm. He took a huge risk starting his own small business, but he had a brilliant idea, and with hard work and determination, his idea has taken off. Now he employs many middle-class individuals, and collectively their ingenuity and visionary outlook on life are having a positive impact on our society. I am proud that we are lowering the small business tax rate to 9% by 2019, and also extremely pleased that we are investing in small tech firms like Geordie's.

Our government recognizes the fantastic work that our tech sector adds to our industry. It is fantastic that our government is making such a significant investment in venture capital to help create the conditions for success for these brilliant and creative minds. They are creating the businesses that will ensure the future of meaningful, well-paid, middle-class jobs and prosperity for Hamilton and Canada.

This bill introduces many measures that make me confident that our government is a careful steward of workers' rights, entrepreneurship, and our economy. Bill C-63 is good for Hamiltonians and Canadians.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about policies aimed at enabling indigenous spiritual practices. I would be curious about her thoughts on some of the critical comments made about faith by the Governor General and supported by the Prime Minister. I would be curious to know how that squares with that.

She also spoke about the NAFTA negotiations. This is an important point, because she praised the way the NAFTA negotiations have been used as a vehicle for the Canadian government to try to push, for instance, for changes to American right-to-work policies. Those are obviously contentious policies and are much debated within the United States. However, we are seeing a government that is not prioritizing Canadian economic interests in those negotiations. We are seeing a situation where the government is putting at risk our economic position in these critical negotiations, because frankly, it is prioritizing trying to push social change in the United States instead of standing up for Canadian workers. I am concerned that we are not advancing our interests and that there is a big risk to Canadians and Canadian jobs associated with that.

I wonder if the member can comment on whether she thinks our priority in these negotiations should be protecting Canadian interests or trying to influence social and political change in the United States.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the first matter, I remind my colleague that we are the party of the charter. With respect to rights and freedoms, including religious rights and freedoms, we support these rights. I am delighted that in this legislation we are talking about today, we include indigenous spiritual practices. That is further evidence of the support and strength of the charter.

With respect to the NAFTA negotiations with respect to labour rights, we are holding firm. There is no question that in these negotiations we are working very hard to ensure that Canada comes first and that we get the best deal for Canadians. I would like to reassure my colleague that it is exactly what we will be doing at the NAFTA table.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked a lot about workers in Hamilton and protecting workers' rights, and also today, my colleague from Hamilton Mountain introduced a bill to protect pensions.

I would like to know my colleague's opinion, considering that in the 2015 election campaign, she promised many things to her constituents in Hamilton. I would like to hear what she told them about protecting workers' pensions and what she has to say to them now about the fact that, since this government came to power, it has not introduced any bills that include amendments to better protect workers' pensions, like the workers in Hamilton. Bill C-63 also does nothing in that regard.

What does she have to say to them?

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the proud daughter of a steelworker, I can assure everyone that workers' rights are something that have always been very important to me. The protection of pensions is important. In my own riding in Hamilton, I have heard heart-wrenching stories from Stelco employees about the issues they have faced and gone through.

I want to assure this House that the protection of pensions is an important issue for me. I look forward to discussions with the opposite side so that we can come to an agreement on how we can balance protecting pensions with ensuring that businesses continue to thrive and people are willing to invest.

With respect to the comments today, in this bill there are protections related to work flexibility. The Canada Labour Code would be amended to ensure that there were more flexible work arrangements for employees. Families would have a maximum leave for family issues. Victims of family violence would have a maximum of 10 days when they experienced family violence. As I have said, traditional aboriginal practices would have a maximum of five days.

What we are trying to do is ensure that workers have rights and that those rights are protected. We are very proud of what would be implemented with this bill.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Sherbrooke will have five minutes of speaking time today. He will be given another five minutes when the House resumes debate on on Bill C-63 at a later date.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, five minutes is not a lot of time to go over the reasons why we must oppose the bill.

To me, we must oppose this bill for many reasons, including for its lack of substantive measures for fighting tax evasion and for the problems raised a few minutes ago at the Standing Committee on Finance regarding the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. We have a lot of problems with this bank. It raises a lot of questions.

Let us start with the fight against tax evasion. Yesterday, there was another leak regarding the Paradise Papers. According to an army of lawyers representing wealthy Canadian clients, everything is legal, there is no problem, everything is fine. They are entitled to do this, there is no problem.

That is precisely the fundamental problem that we tried to address in question period in the House today. The government should have addressed this issue in its Bill C-63, the budget implementation bill. It failed to so yet again. There is no measure in place to make illegal what is morally unacceptable or what we might describe as legalized fraud.

They use tax treaties like the ones with the Cayman Islands and Barbados and tax agreements to avoid double taxation. Those tax information exchange agreements are supposed to give us information about taxpayers who have interests and accounts in the Cayman Islands, but the fact is, the government has had a tax information exchange agreement with the Cayman Islands since 2010. That is where Mr. Bronfman had his tax-free trust, which apparently netted him some handsome returns.

Agreements like those, like the one with the Cayman Islands, legalize what should be illegal. Those information exchange agreements were supposed to provide information to the revenue minister and the finance minister in exchange for that tax benefit, if I may call it that.

It is becoming clear that the revenue minister is once again completely in the dark with respect to the information hidden in those tax havens. She never got any information. Information leaks and data about Canadian companies and interests in that country reached her at the same time as they reached the rest of the public.

What, then, is the purpose of these tax information exchange agreements? We get no information, but those who register their trusts, their companies, their subsidiaries, and their shell companies over there get tax benefits. We get nothing at all out of the deal.

It is time for our government to step up and review our tax treaties. It also needs to review schemes like these, which allow rich taxpayers to get out of paying the Canadian government what they owe. These people benefit from our infrastructure, our roads, our public transit, and our health and education systems, but what do they give back to society in return? Zilch. They stash their wealth in overseas accounts and contribute nothing to the development of our communities and our country.

Now more than ever, it is time for the government to take action on this issue. With Bill C-63, the government missed its opportunity to take action and show that it really does intend to solve the problem. Now we see that it has been infiltrated by people who are exploiting the system and the status quo to get out of paying their fair share of taxes. Today, we really have to wonder what the government's true agenda is.

The other thing I wanted to mention is the Asian infrastructure bank. Close to $500 million of Canadian taxpayer money will go to creating a bank in China that will be controlled primarily by China. This bank will invest in Chinese interests and in privatized Chinese infrastructure projects. We saw the same thing here with the Canada infrastructure bank. This is shameful. We need to speak out against this bill for the sake of Canadians, perhaps even for the sake of people overseas.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Sherbrooke will have five minutes and 21 seconds when debate on this bill resumes.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, on June 5, 2017, I rose in the House to ask a question regarding the measures needed to protect all of our lakes and rivers.

As we know, the Liberals promised to reinstate the measures to protect our navigable waters that were eliminated by the Conservative government. I felt that the answer given by the Minister of Transport was too vague, and the government still has not kept that promise. Our waterways and lakes have been left vulnerable to environmental attacks for too long. It is high time the government reinstated the protective measures eliminated by the Conservatives. By refusing to act, the minister continues to deprive 99% of Canada's navigable waters of environmental and regulatory protections. That does not make any sense. In my riding, the Yamaska, Noire, and Le Renne rivers have been left unprotected, and this has had devastating consequences, particularly for the ecosystems those rivers support.

The former government's two omnibus bills have had obvious consequences. According to an article published in La Voix de l'Est last February, the North Yamaska and Le Renne rivers in Acton Vale contain a number of contaminants that have rarely been seen to date. The presence of these contaminants is affecting the water quality and fish health.

If the Liberals are so concerned about the environment, why are they not taking action? I would remind the House that there are currently no regulations for development projects that will affect Canadian waterways. In the decision-making process for granting building permits, only factors related to navigation are taken into account. Environmental impacts are summarily dismissed. It is unacceptable that proponents are no longer required to inform the government when a project will negatively affect navigation. It is unacceptable that citizens and advocacy groups are the ones who have to shoulder the responsibility of taking project proponents to court when their navigation rights are threatened.

In 2012, hundreds of Canadians signed the petition calling for the protection of public navigation rights. They were also calling on the government to restore the environmental assessment process for proposed development projects on and near bodies of water. Nothing has changed since 2012. The Liberals still refuse to reinstate the automatic triggering of environmental assessments, despite their election promises. Many will recall the comments of the current President of the Treasury Board on the Conservatives' policy. He described the changes as catastrophic and said that the Conservatives were endangering the health of our lakes and rivers, and yet, nothing has been done. The Liberals are shirking their responsibilities in this area.

In his response to my question last June, the Minister of Transport said he wanted to restore important navigable waters protection measures as recommended by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, but the Liberals' response is once again unsatisfactory. We are disappointed that the Liberal members are recommending that the federal government maintain the schedule that excludes 99% of lakes and rivers from the necessary protection. By making that choice, the Liberals are not basing their recommendation on the evidence heard in committee.

Is the minister aware that the conclusions in this report conflict with the opinions of the expert panel on environmental assessment?

That is why, in January, the NDP highlighted the situation in its dissenting opinion. The Navigable Waters Protection Act safeguards our natural heritage and our landscapes.

To conclude, my question—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Order. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence.

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for her interest in the Navigation Protection Act. Our government is determined to provide a safe and sustainable transport system that protects the public right of navigation on our waterways. As my colleague pointed out, in 2014, the previous government made changes to the Navigation Protection Act, which reduced the scope of navigation protections to the lakes, rivers, and oceans set out in the schedule.

In June 2016, our government launched a review of environmental and regulatory processes. The 2014 amendments to the Navigation Protection Act were studied as part of that comprehensive review. Consultation and engagement are at the heart of the review process. Since June 2016, many stakeholders have shared their views on the amendments and on how to reinstate the previous protections. We have had the opportunity to hear from many experts, including the independent panel on transport, and representatives of the public, indigenous communities, the provinces and territories, interest groups, and the industry.

Indigenous people told us that Canada's waters are sacred and that they want to be consulted about what is built on their traditional lands. That is why we are looking at new approaches so that we can work in partnership with indigenous peoples to monitor navigation in their traditional territories.

We heard from paddlers and other recreational users of our waterways. They want reassurances that they will be able to continue to use Canada's waterways safely. Our government commits to maintain protections for Canada's navigable waters.

We heard from industry and other levels of government that an effective regulatory system is needed for building the important infrastructure that recreational travellers need and that allows businesses and industries to get their products to their destination. Our government is determined to provide a clear, transparent, and public process that proponents can be proud of.

Finally, we heard from Canadians that they want to know more about how we develop our regulatory process. Our government will establish a new standard of inclusion and transparency in protecting navigation. We take environmental protection very seriously and that is one of the reasons why the Minister of the Environment is currently reviewing the assessment process to ensure that the environment is protected when projects move forward. We will keep working and the results of the review will help us ensure that navigation on all of Canada's navigable waters is protected.

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

Mr. Speaker, the answers are always the same. It is not enough to just listen. Nothing has changed in months. This government needs to change its tune and make a decision to act now. It is time for the government to uphold its commitments and reinstate the necessary measures to protect all our lakes and rivers. The situation is becoming increasingly critical for our waterways and the ecosystems they support. We need to act and fix the problem caused by the previous Conservative government's Bill C-45. Despite their election promise to reinstate the protections that had been taken away, the Liberals are showing yet again that, sadly, their word cannot be trusted.

It is disappointing that the government is ignoring the advice of the environmental assessment expert panel. There is a fundamental and urgent need to protect our waterways. These lakes and rivers are valuable, and water is a precious resource.

I will ask the same question one last time: when will the government finally reinstate the necessary measures to protect all our lakes and rivers?