Debates of Nov. 7th, 2017

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been very much engaged in consultation with my former colleagues in public safety. What they have told us unequivocally is that, in order to address law enforcement capacity issues for the enforcement of these regulations, they need training, access to technology, and resources. We have listened, perhaps better than any other government, in my experience. I have been doing this for 40 years, and I can say that from my experience, I can recall dozens of times where very complex legislation was basically thrown over the fence to us and we were wished good luck with it. Instead, we have been working with law enforcement leaders in this country for over two years. We have listened to what they said they needed, we have responded to that, we have announced up to $274 million to make those investments in training, technology, and resources that they said they needed, and we will be there to help them be ready.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

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 Brandon—Souris, Fisheries and Oceans; the hon. member for Vancouver East, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship; the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, Employment Insurance.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Burnaby South.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this has been a very wide-ranging debate today on the budget bill, as it should be. I am going to add to that wide-ranging discussion of what we are faced with here in the House. I am speaking to Bill C-63, and it is the second budget implementation bill. I regret to say that I will be voting against the bill, and I hope to outline in this speech why that is the case.

In a nutshell, there are many things in this bill. It proposes to bring into effect new spending and new regulations with which I do not agree. There are many things that are not in this bill that I would like to see; for example, money for a national pharmacare program or more money for housing, which is of such critical concern in my riding of Burnaby South. However, that money is not there.

I want to bring to the attention of the House today that I am voting against this bill in part to protest and bring attention to the way the current government presents information to the public. In many cases, data are used to promote certain economic activities; the data that are used by the government are badly distorted, whether on purpose or through incompetence; or it is just plain wrong.

In the last Parliament when I would get up and talk about budgets, especially on the science portfolio, which I oversee for the NDP, I would ask for the presentation of data adjusted for inflation, for example, if they are looking at longitudinal data. I remember the Conservatives telling me that was some socialist voodoo economics, but in fact it is just a realistic way of looking at how money is spent over time.

I have not heard back from the current government, but I expect to be heckled a bit as I go through this talk today.

I would like to bring attention to the way the government throws around job-creation figures. As we did with the Conservative government in the last Parliament, we often get hyper-inflated numbers of job creation that always tie back to the budget, the spending, and those types of things. The Prime Minister's cabinet members are talking about jobs associated with their plan to ram a pipeline through British Columbia. That is of course the Kinder Morgan pipeline. If members will recall, this project was approved and the Prime Minister broke his promise to British Columbians and said that he would thoroughly review the project to see how many jobs and what would be the effect on the environment. However, he did not do that, and the Liberals are pushing it through against the wishes of the provincial government, most first nations communities, mayors and councils, and millions of British Columbians. Therefore, what I take specific issue with is the way the Liberals portray their job-creation numbers, not only in relation to the budget but in this specific case.

When the Prime Minister announced the approval of the pipeline, he said he would create 15,000 new middle-class jobs, and we see this in the budget document where we hear about all the jobs that the spending would create. However, in this case with the pipeline, the Prime Minister and his other ministers and parliamentary secretaries have said that this would create “15,000 new middle-class jobs”. This is repeated over and over. This is a lot of jobs; 15,000 jobs is a big number, and people might be tempted to overlook the environmental damage and the damage to relations with first nations that this might create, and they might support the project if, in fact, the figure of 15,000 jobs were true, but it is not. Really, the number is straight out of the mouths of the pipeline company proponents, the spin doctors, right onto the lips of the Prime Minister and of the parliamentary secretaries who defend the pipeline, and of the entire Liberal caucus in British Columbia, which is also solidly behind pushing this pipeline through our province.

The Prime Minister's ministers in cabinet repeat this number over and over again, so I feel it is important to delve into the number because it exposes the incompetence and duplicity of the current government when it comes to its economic statements. The first thing to note is that 15,000 jobs that the pipeline supposedly is going to create is just plain wrong, according to many analysts—for example, Robyn Allan, who has written extensively on this and testified both as an expert to the National Energy Board and on her own in many publications, is taking on this number firmly and convincingly.

Ms. Allan is no slouch. She is a former president and CEO of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, the vice-president of finance at Parklane Ventures Ltd., and senior economist for the B.C. Credit Union. She is an expert witness on economic and insurance-related issues right here in Ottawa. She has taught money and banking, public finance, and micro and macroeconomics in universities. She has written numerous articles and books. If we were to call a witness to talk about how many jobs a project or a budget would actually create, this is the type of person we would want to advise us.

According to Ms. Robyn Allan, this number of 15,000 jobs associated with the Kinder Morgan pipeline is six times the number of temporary construction jobs actually presented by the company in its National Energy Board application. The Prime Minister, the parliamentary secretaries, the cabinet, and the B.C. caucus are all saying that the Kinder Morgan pipeline will create 15,000 jobs during its construction. However, that is contrary to what the company presented in its documentation to the National Energy Board. Therefore, the government has inflated this number sixfold. If we extrapolate that over other parts of the budget and other parts of the claims by the government, this makes us doubt almost everything that it is putting forward.

The 15,000 jobs number comes from a fantastical calculation based on a doubling of the amount of construction time this proposed pipeline is allowed to take. The pipeline is supposed to be constructed over two years. This 15,000 job number comes from a four-year construction period. Therefore, according to Ms. Allan, “Trans Mountain's estimate of 15,000 construction workforce jobs is a scam. The more realistic figure is less than 20 per cent of that size.”

Therefore, when Canadians are here listening to this debate in the House about the Liberals and their fiscal plans, the latter are flat out telling falsehoods about what we can expect with respect to one of the biggest projects in the country. They downplay the environmental damage that just one spill from this pipeline or its construction would create in communities right across British Columbia and have artificially inflated the number of jobs that will be created.

What is also important is the second part of the Prime Minister's statement that these jobs will be middle-class jobs. These 15,000 jobs the government claims will come from this pipeline are not permanent. This is of course from documents submitted by the company to the National Energy Board, which state, “Once the proposed Expansion Project is complete, operating and maintaining...[this] Pipeline system will result in approximately 90 new operating positions”. In fact, we will never see the Prime Minister stand up and say that he has justified this pipeline because it will create 90 permanent jobs; rather, he uses the inflated number of 15,000 jobs, which is clearly wrong.

The idea that these jobs are middle class is also wrong. Kinder Morgan president Ian Anderson was here at committee and admitted that he hires temporary foreign workers, and that those are the workers who will be hired to build this pipeline. Therefore, these 15,000 are not full-time middle-class jobs, but 90 full-time jobs, and perhaps 2,000 or 3,000 temporary construction jobs filled by temporary foreign workers.

What is worse, Kinder Morgan has contracted with CLAC, which is not an official union. It is not, for example, the BC Building Trades union. Therefore, it is skirting the unions in British Columbia that would ordinarily protect workers in order to make this happen.

Once we actually start looking at the facts from the company and the National Energy Board, we see that this 15,000 job claim is wrong. We have temporary foreign workers, we have temporary jobs, and we have 90-full time jobs. That is hardly worth rupturing our entire relationship with first nations people or local communities. In fact, 45% of British Columbians oppose this pipeline, and 30% are strongly opposed and are willing to take action to stop it. Many people who have not been to British Columbia are not aware that we do not have treaties with the first nations there, and they have significant rights. We are seeing this play out right now. We have 18 court cases, many of which were filed by first nations, including one yesterday by the Squamish Nation challenging the legitimacy of the review process for the pipeline.

Therefore, I would suggest that the government go back and take a look at these numbers for real and come back with realistic numbers that we could debate more fully.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member about the indexing of the Canada child benefit in the budget implementation act. We know the Canada child benefit has had positive impacts across the country, including in the hon. member's riding. Could he could tell us what he has heard from his constituents about its benefits for low and middle-income Canadians, such as reduced child poverty, and if he is happy to hear it will be indexed in the future?

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to tell the hon. member about what my constituents are saying about what I was speaking about. In fact, in 2014, 125 of them were arrested for trying to stop the pipeline. Thousands and thousands have protested against it. I polled my own riding, and 75% of those in Burnaby are against it.

They are really mad at the government, which keeps outlining in false way the benefits from this pipeline in order to spread the mistruths the company itself puts forward. I definitely listen to my constituents, and they care about this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to do something I rarely do, which is to forgive the hon. member for Burnaby South for not speaking to the bill before us, because I passionately share his opposition to this wrong-headed project.

I would like him to expand on the theme. He carefully laid out how Kinder Morgan's claims that it will create vast numbers of jobs are completely erroneous, but what was not mentioned in his speech was the threat to jobs by building Kinder Morgan. The largest trade union in northern Alberta representing oil sands workers is Unifor. It attempted, as I did, to intervene in the process. It attempted to enter evidence into the record before the National Energy Board that Kinder Morgan threatened jobs as a direct threat to the Chevron refinery, which I believe is either in the member's riding or very close.

Could he comment on the threat to jobs at the Chevron refinery if Kinder Morgan proceeds?

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy the member's interventions and really appreciate her support on this issue.

Of course, the threat to jobs in Burnaby or the rest of British Columbia is not covered by examinations at the National Energy Board, because the government relies on the process created by the Conservatives, which is to limit debate and stop cross-examination of companies. As a result, we really get a very pro picture of almost all projects.

The Prime Minister had said he would change the process and would send the pipeline proposal back to the drawing board. He immediately broke his promise, did not revise the process, and here we are.

Getting to the hon. member's exact point, we do have a refinery in Burnaby that I support. However, what has happened is that Kinder Morgan is pinching off supply to that refinery and it is in danger of closing. I fully support those jobs, which are good, union-paying jobs. It is a shame the government is not paying more attention to the welfare of people in British Columbia.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for talking about jobs. As someone from a coastal community who ran a chamber of commerce, I understand how important it is to protect the marine economy for our jobs. There are over 100,000 people who rely on a clean ocean for their jobs in coastal British Columbia.

As my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands just mentioned, we need to do everything we can to protect jobs in coastal British Columbia. We also have an opportunity to build a marine economy for the future. Where I live in Port Alberni, we want to build a marine economy through enhancements and investments in our ports, through investments in rehabilitating our salmon, investments in salmon restoration, and habitat protection and salmon enhancement.

Perhaps the member could talk about the jobs that are being threatened by this proposal and future opportunities for coastal British Columbia, which British Columbians are going to stand up and fight for, and how important it is that we listen to British Columbians. If we underestimate the will of British Columbians, we will find out what people in my community know, that when logging was taking place in 1993, the largest civil disobedience in Canadian history took place when good jobs and the future of the economy we created in Clayoquot Sound were threatened.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government says that it is an evidence-based government that makes policy based on evidence, but basically it decided that this pipeline was going to go through no matter what, and then it fit the facts to support its case. Of course, one would perhaps expect that from an undergraduate writing their first paper, but not from a government that is supposed to run the country. The Liberals need to take in more evidence and, in fact, they need to cancel this project.

Business of the House

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions among the parties and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion.

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, when the House adjourns on Thursday, November 9, 2017, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, November 20, 2017, provided that, for the purposes of Standing Order 28, the House shall be deemed to have sat on Friday, November 10, 2017.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

We do not have unanimous consent I am afraid.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if it is appropriate to ask, but is it possible to ask the question again?

There may have been a misunderstanding. My understanding is that there was unanimous support for the motion. Therefore, if it is possible, could you ask once again? I had thought all parties were in support of the motion.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Okay, we will try one more time.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-63, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to speak to Bill C-63 today. The budget implementation act, 2017, no. 2 includes key measures from the government's second budget, which outlines the second phase of the government's plan to make smart investments that will create jobs, grow our economy, and provide more opportunities for every Canadian to succeed.

Thanks to these smart investments and an overall commitment to equity, the government is ensuring that Canada's best days are still ahead.

Before I get into the budget implementation bill, I want to talk about the measures the government has taken so far to give all Canadians, including those in the middle class and those working hard to join it, the opportunities they need to succeed.

To begin with, we asked the wealthiest 1% to pay a bit more in taxes in order to be able to give the middle class a tax cut. That tax cut for the middle class benefited nine million Canadians, and we are very proud of that.

Then we brought in the new Canada child benefit, which has lifted hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. As a result of our CCB, nine out of 10 Canadian families are getting more in benefits than they did under the previous system. Compared to the previous system of child benefits, the CCB is more generous and better targeted to those who need it most.

In the fall economic statement released on October 24, the government announced that it would strengthen the Canada child benefit by indexing it to annual increases in the cost of living as of 2018, which is two years earlier than planned. What does that mean in practical terms? For a single parent with two children and an income of $35,000, the enhanced Canada child benefit will contribute an additional $560 in the 2019-20 benefit year towards the cost of raising his or her children. That means more money for books, winter coats, and skating lessons. The added confidence that the Canada child benefit brings to families can have a positive impact on economic growth.

Our government has also enhanced the Canada pension plan in order to provide Canadians with financial security when they retire from their hard work life. Enhancing the Canada pension plan ensures that Canadians will have more money in retirement so they are less worried about saving and can focus more on enjoying the good times with their families.

Starting in 2019, we will be enhancing the working income tax benefit by an additional $500 million per year. This will put more money in the pockets of low-income workers, including families without children and the growing number of single Canadians. The enhancement will be in addition to the increase of about $250 million annually that will also come into effect in 2019 as part of the enhancement of the Canada pension plan.

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 essential support.

This extra money could pay the family grocery bill or buy warm winter clothes. The improved benefit will help low-income Canadians make ends meet.

The government is also showing that it is committed to helping small businesses invest, grow, and create jobs by lowering the small business tax rate to 10% effective January 1, 2018, and to 9% effective 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 businesses to grow and prosper.

Lastly, the government intends to make important changes to the tax system that will ensure Canada's low corporate tax rates serve to support businesses, not to provide unfair tax advantages to the wealthy and the richest Canadians.

The steps taken to date are having a real positive impact on our economy and for Canadians. Optimism is on the rise, and with good reason. Job creation is strong with over 450,000 new jobs created in the last two years. The unemployment rate is at its lowest level since 2008. Youth unemployment is at a historic low.

Canada has the fastest growing economy in the G7 by a wide margin, growing at an average rate of 3.7% over the last year, which is the fastest pace of growth since early 2006. Growth is forecast to be 3.1% in 2017, significantly above the expectation at the beginning of the year.

The fiscal outlook has improved by more than $6.5 billion annually on average from what was projected in budget 2017 last March.

The tax measures that we have taken for the benefit of families and children are having a real impact every day in my riding, Montarville. Approximately 97% of the people of Montarville clearly define themselves as being part of the middle class. These positive impacts are reported back to us regularly. They are felt in a very real and tangible way in peoples' wallets. This kind of investment is crucial, perhaps even a game-changer, in giving people assurances of a better life that is easier to manage because their budget is easier to manage.

For example, the city of Saint-Bruno, where I live, has been named the best place in Canada to raise children.

This kind of tax break is key to giving families the help they all need, just as families are having more and more children. A young family with three very young kids lives right across from me. That family is benefiting directly from this kind of help. This help is making a real, tangible, and practical difference at the end of every month.

Another measure I find quite interesting among the budget measures is the government's decision to legalize and regulate cannabis, as well as the economic spinoffs that can be generated by such a measure.

Our government plans to legalize and strictly regulate cannabis. This policy is necessary and desirable and has two objectives: to keep marijuana out of the hands of youth, and to deprive criminals of any profits from illegal cannabis sales.

In advance of the government's plan to legalize cannabis, budget 2017 allocated several million dollars to public education programming and surveillance activities. On that note, I would like to inform the House that during the consultations I participated in, and even had the chance to lead in Quebec, one important concern was raised with regard to training, information, and above all prevention. Now that the system is regulated, the government can use the sales tax revenues it generates to take concrete action in certain areas, including prevention programs.

Taxation is one of the key factors that will play a major role in ensuring the objectives of legalization are met. As the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have clearly stated, in order for legalization to be effective, taxes must be low from the beginning, and the federal, provincial, and territorial governments must continue to work together to guarantee a coordinated approach. Co-operation is critical, and the federal government wants to engage our provincial and territorial partners in order to develop a coordinated approach to cannabis taxation.

I would like to remind all members that taxation is not the main objective of legalization. On the contrary, this is an essential health issue, given that the status quo has failed so spectacularly. That being said, by taking responsibility and legalizing cannabis, we will generate indirect tax revenue that will benefit Canadian society as a whole.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we hear the government talk about the child benefit. I want to know if the Liberals have addressed the results that we are finding in places like Fort McMurray, where many of the families have lost the child benefit because of increased incomes, but the high cost of living is not being taken into consideration. Also the fact that so many people are losing their jobs as well as their homes is not being taken into consideration.

What is the government doing to address those issues where families have a new situation and the government is not there for support at all?

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, simply put, we decided to change the former strategy where the child benefit was taxable to something that is not. Therefore, people who get the child benefit at the end of the month every month, net amount, pay their expenses with what they receive.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the election campaign, the Liberals made a promise that they were going to invest in language revitalization for indigenous peoples. We have been through two budgets, a budget implementation act here today, and again, there is nothing for indigenous language.

Right now we are in an emergency situation when it comes to languages. We lose more and more elders and the holders of that language. Cliff Atleo, who is one of our Nuu-chah-nulth elders at the council of the Ha'wiih, which is the hereditary chiefs of the Nuu-chah-nulth, says that their language is their identity. When they lose their language, they lose their identity.

If the member supports language revitalization and investments in the holders of the language, there are young people like Victoria Wells and Ivy Martin who want to carry on the legacy of their language and their culture, and holders of the language like Levi Martin, who want to share that knowledge, but we need assistance to help them carry on their culture and their traditions.

Will the government take urgent action on language revitalization as the NDP has repeatedly asked it to do?

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, initiatives for reconciliation with the indigenous peoples are at the heart of our commitment. I am a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security with opposition colleagues, and all the members are unanimous that the first nations need as much collaboration as necessary to improve their situation. When it comes to identity or security, no stone is being left unturned.