Debates of March 21st, 2017

Opposition Motion—Budget 2017

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for his very lively speech. However, I would urge my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent, in the Quebec City region, to be cautious when he talks about Beau Dommage, which is very much a Montreal group. The words of the song 23 décembre definitely talk about Mr. Côté, not Mr. Tanguay.

That said, my colleague also talked about Robin Hood and Liberal mismanagement. During the election campaign, the Liberal Party promised the moon and a small deficit. The campaign was led by people who did not think they would one day form the government. They wondered what they could do to stand out and they would say anything. Now, Canadians are left with nothing much.

Indeed, many Canadians travel, but I would not go so far as to say, as my colleague did, that all Canadians travel by air, because many of them are not well-off, and I see that in my riding. However, what is true is that Canadians are still the ones who will pay for the lies the Liberal government told during the election campaign.

I would like to hear what my colleague thinks about that.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for adding to my musical culture, which clearly was lacking. I should have written down the lyrics, but the song 23 décembre only came to mind this morning as I arrived in the House.

The member is quite right that not all Canadians travel. Let us agree, however, that air transportation is much more democratic today than it used to be. We totally agree on that.

I want to point out the guts and the sense of responsibility the NDP displayed during the last election campaign. That party had the courage to come clean with Canadians and tell them that it would not promise a deficit, because deficits are bad. That took a lot of guts and a huge sense of responsibility, so I commend the New Democrats.

Canadians are now realizing that the deficit has risen to $30 billion despite the government's promise of a small $10-billion deficit. Plus, the government was supposed to balance the budget by 2019, but now that will not happen until 2055. This government was elected on a promise that it would strike a balance and help business owners, but now it is doing exactly the opposite by creating new taxes and new fees.

As my NDP colleague put it so well, those people were elected by promising the moon to Canadians. It may be party time now, but our children and grandchildren will be left to pay for this Liberal government's gross mismanagement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reassure people in the House that my jurisdiction in Saskatchewan is the only jurisdiction in this country that does not support the carbon tax.

We know it is not revenue neutral. We know that. In fact, the agriculture minister paid a visit to my city of Saskatoon last week. He was welcomed with open arms by the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities. It had its annual meeting. The minister got an earful.

We know that south of the border they are cutting taxes. We compete with the United States. Here, there will be increased costs. Farmers and food producers are not happy. They are waiting for tomorrow in anticipation of the budget. They gave the agriculture minister an earful last week in Saskatoon.

Does the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent think farmers should wait, holding their breath, for the Liberal regime to finally recognize agriculture in the budget, not like last year when it was never mentioned once?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pay respect to my hon. colleague from Saskatoon—Grasswood who is representing his constituency with greatness and honour.

Yes, this was totally unacceptable. I think it was maybe the first time in Canadian history that a budget did not talk about agriculture. Worse than that, the throne speech made by the Governor General had no mention of it. This is totally unacceptable.

We shall respect our agriculture and the people who work in farming. The farmers of Canada are part of the backbone of the Canadian economy. I am very proud to say that my family is involved in agriculture. My daughter is involved in the farm business, because my son-in-law is involved in a dairy farm. I am very proud of all the farmers in Quebec and all the farmers in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am always intrigued by the member opposite when he articulates his position.

It is interesting that the opposition made this particular motion. It is a reflection on budgets, obviously. I was surprised by the Conservative Party at the last budget, because what we saw was a substantial tax break for Canada's middle class. It was a tax break. The Conservative Party went out of its way to make it clear that it was voting against a tax break to Canada's middle class and those aspiring to join it.

Could the member explain to the House why the Conservatives voted against a tax decrease?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my hon. colleague. I appreciate it every time he rises in the House, and it happens quite a few times every day. I appreciate his style.

In answer to his question, it is because the budget had a deficit and not a small deficit, as was promised during the campaign. It was a huge deficit, three times more than expected, three times more than what they had been elected for. Worse than that, there was no plan for a zero deficit.

What we are seeing, thanks to the civil servants in the Department of Finance, is that the government will get back to a zero deficit in 2055, missing its target by 36 years. That is why this was totally unacceptable.

More than that, the member is talking about a so-called tax break for the middle class, but may I remind him that the report made by the parliamentary budget office concluded that 65% of people will see no effect from the so-called tax break? The best winners were not exactly the middle class but those who earn between $145,000 and $200,000 a year, so we are not talking about the middle class. This is why we told the government that it was not the right way to get full control of the economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

Last fall, the Minister of Transport presented his vision for the future of transportation in Canada, also referred to as Transportation 2030. This vision reflects his extensive engagement with Canadians, stakeholders, provinces and territories, academics, and indigenous groups, following the release of the Canada Transportation Act review final report in February 2016.

Transportation 2030 emphasizes five main themes: the traveller; strengthening transport safety; green and innovative transportation; waterways, coasts, and the north; and trade corridors to global markets. During the consultations conducted by the Minister of Transport and his superb parliamentary secretary, Canadians were very clear. They want lower-cost air travel and more opportunities for leisure and business travel. They seek more efficient processing at the border and airport screening with shorter wait times. They have asked for long-term, sustainable competition, which would allow the introduction of additional air services, improved air connectivity, and more choice. As competition increases and air carriers look for ways to reduce prices, Canadians also want a more consistent, transparent, and rigorous approach to passenger rights.

The Minister of Transport has listened, and is committing to achieving tangible improvements to the travel experience. He is taking action now.

The government believes that the rights of Canadian air travellers need to be made clearer and fairer for passengers and airlines. That is why the Minister of Transport is establishing more predictable and reasonable air passenger rights. To that end he will introduce a bill mandating the Canadian Transportation Agency to develop regulations that would create a new air passenger bill of rights.

Although the exact details are established by the Agency's regulatory process, the new bill of rights will establish clear standards for treating people travelling with children and travellers who end up in trying situations, such as flight delays or cancellations, which will also include compensation in some cases.

The bill of rights will also ensure that passengers are clearly informed of their rights and will allow Transport Canada to gather more data on airline performance. The government intends to take a balanced approach in this file by assuring the airlines that their ability to compete will not be compromised and that they will not be made to bear an excessive burden that could potentially affect the cost of air travel.

The transport minister will pursue legislative changes to allow international investors to own up to 49% of the voting shares of Canadian air carriers, which is up from the current 25%.

As some members may know, other countries have different approaches to international ownership of air carriers. It is important to ensure that Canadian carriers compete on a level playing field. To protect the competitiveness of our air sector and support connectivity, no single international investor or any combination of international air carriers will be allowed to own more than 25%.

Liberalizing international ownership restrictions means that Canadian air carriers will have access to more investment capital, allowing them the opportunity to be better funded. This new measure is expected to facilitate more competition in the Canadian air sector, and lead to more choice and lower prices for Canadians, as well as benefits for airports and suppliers, including new employment opportunities.

In the interim, in December of last year, the minister granted exemptions to the current international ownership restrictions to two companies that are looking to establish new ultra-low-cost carriers: Canada Jetlines in Vancouver and Calgary's Enerjet. This action is intended to allow these companies to go ahead with their financing efforts while the new legislation is being developed.

Furthermore, as he announced in November 2016, the Minister of Transport remains determined to establish world-class service standards for aviation screening in Canadian airports.

Also, the government continues to improve the experience of air passengers by negotiating new and expanded air transport agreements with international partners, which will enable airlines to expand Canada's links to the rest of the world.

Air transport agreements provide Canadian passengers with access to more airlines, destinations, and flights.

Canada has signed air transport agreements with 120 bilateral partners. In recent months we have expanded our air transport agreements with key aviation partners such as Mexico, China, and Australia. These expansion efforts made it possible for Air Canada to launch daily service between Vancouver and Brisbane, Australia, in 2016.

In closing, I want to point out that the experience of Canadian air passengers is an important priority for the Government of Canada. The initiatives that I have just described contribute greatly to improving the experience of Canadian passengers. They will help lower prices, provide more choice, improve connectivity, and clarify the rights of air passengers while ensuring the viability and competitiveness of Canadian airlines.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to change the subject from air travel and go back to the budget and the huge deficits that Canadian taxpayers are facing over the next decade.

The Conservatives cut corporate income taxes by over one-third over a six-year period. The parliamentary budget officer found that these cuts were costing the Canadian taxpayer $12 billion a year. That is a lot of money and could go a long way to helping the government pay off its debts. What is more, there is no evidence at all that these cuts stimulated any industrial growth or jobs, and so they were a pure debt on society.

Right now, corporate income tax is well below that in the United States, our competitors. I am just wondering what the Liberal government is waiting for when it comes to making big corporations pay their fair share of taxes.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and I were elected at the same time and we have equal experience in this House.

One thing which I certainly know would be very important for us to do, and it is a message that all Canadians would like to hear, is that we would want to make sure we do not raise the tax burden on Canadians. They are struggling enough as it is. We have seen the middle class having enough difficulties making it work.

I agree that the actions of the previous government did not lead to the desired economic growth. This is why we took the position we did when we were campaigning and why we have done what we have pretty much every day since we were elected in terms of the policies that we have pursued. We are making the necessary investments in infrastructure and providing relief for middle-class Canadians so they can feel the pressure is off of their shoulders for a little bit. Not only that, we are making the right kinds of investments which will spark and stimulate economic growth and leave behind the quality infrastructure that we need.

This is a very important approach to take. It is a balanced approach, and one that I am very proud to support as a member of the governing party. I know that many members on all sides of the House want to see the Canadian economy gather further steam, and it is the actions we are taking that will lead to that.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is related to some of the initiatives. The member made reference to the infrastructure program, the historic levels of infrastructure spending by this government.

I also want to pick up on two very important social points that were in the last budget which I would like to hear further comment on from the member. One of them is in regard to the guaranteed income supplement, a program which literally lifted thousands of seniors out of a poverty situation. We also had the increase in the Canada child benefit program, which lifted thousands of children out of a poverty situation.

I wonder if the member could provide some of his thoughts on the social impact of the previous budget and how we can anticipate that we will continue to see a good direction for Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it in the budget tomorrow.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am really glad that my colleague was able to ask me that question. Taking off our partisan hats, these initiatives that he mentioned, such as the increase in the guaranteed income supplement and the creation of the Canada child tax benefit are important initiatives that really help out Canadians.

When I go door knocking in my riding, I see people who are struggling, who are just having a hard time making it. They are doing all the right things. They are working. They have kids. They are trying to contribute to their society, but the fact is it is hard to make ends meet. Housing is extremely expensive nowadays. Things are not getting cheaper. It is hard for people to get out from under that. Now with the Canada child benefit in particular, which helps out more than 12,000 families in my riding, this is a huge initiative that allows people to take advantage of these tax-free benefits and, if nothing else, to do no more harm. At its best, I think it helps them find some financial freedom so they can do the things they need to do to raise their families properly and give their kids great opportunities to play around, to take part in school activities and, as a result, to become better citizens. This is great and I am very proud to be part of a government that would bring forward this type of new social policy.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say how pleased I am to speak in the House today on what our government has done and is planning to do for infrastructure in this country.

The Government of Canada knows that infrastructure provides Canadians with opportunities to get an education, to volunteer, to grow a business, to raise a family in a safe community. Infrastructure is the foundation of better communities. It strengthens our economy, and a strong economy starts with a strong middle class.

Investing in infrastructure creates good, well-paying jobs that help the middle class grow and prosper. By making it easier to move people and products, well-planned infrastructure can deliver sustained economic growth for years to come.

The Government of Canada is more than doubling infrastructure spending. We are investing more than $180 billion over 12 years to support public transit, green and social infrastructure, and trade and transportation in rural and northern communities. We have already started by addressing our most pressing infrastructure deficits, making repairs to our aging pipes and roads, building and refurbishing affordable housing, and adapting buses to ensure seniors and individuals with disabilities have access to safe and reliable transportation.

Our plan is well under way in two key programs that I am proud of: the clean water and waste water fund and the public transit infrastructure fund. They are already making a difference in Canada and Canadian lives. More importantly, more than1,100 projects have already been approved under these programs, and more than half of those projects are already under way. It is because of this progress that residents in many communities in Newfoundland and Labrador will experience fewer water shut-off requests and school closures caused by deteriorated service lines.

Commuters in Surrey, B.C., will get to spend more time with their families and enjoy a cleaner environment as a result of the expansion of key transit lines. These expansions will reduce travel times and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, something we all must applaud. In the north, residents of Iqaluit will benefit from a new secondary waste water treatment plant that will ensure cleaner water flows back into the environment.

Those are just a few examples of the outcomes we will see across the country.

With more than $10 billion announced in budget 2016, infrastructure projects across the country are already making a huge difference in communities. These projects include nearly 550 public transit projects, including the expansion of more than 80 transit systems that will make it easier to get to work on time, reduce pollution, and ensure that public transportation is there when Canadians need it; more than 700 projects under the clean water and waste water fund that will improve access to clean drinking water and reduce pollution in our lakes and rivers; more than 1,000 projects to retrofit or renovate social housing to repair more than 48,000 social housing units, which will make housing more affordable for families and more energy efficient to live in; and more than 950 housing projects in indigenous communities, including 125 projects aimed at building and improving schools and 200 water and waste water projects.

We have also worked closely with partners to expand eligibility requirements and accelerate the funding being delivered under such legacy programs as the new Building Canada fund and to quickly move forward with new programs to support projects across the country from coast to coast to coast. These improvements respond to the feedback we have received from communities and stakeholders across the country. Broadly, these changes created greater flexibility for highway and road projects across Canada and expanded funding categories to include culture, recreation, tourism, civic assets, and passenger ferries. We are listening to stakeholders and responding.

Of these legacy programs, $800 million was committed in the last year to new projects that are moving forward. The remaining $30 million is being transferred directly into the federal gas tax fund so that Canadian communities can have immediate access to those funds.

This approach is generating results. For example, in Newfoundland and Labrador 20 projects were approved in the last year, whereas no projects had been approved in the previous three years under these legacy programs. As well, just last week three municipalities in Quebec received more than $18.3 million in federal funding for much-needed recreational facilities that will greatly enhance the quality of life for residents. Without expanded program parameters, these important projects would not have been funded.

We are also following through on our commitment to find innovative ways to fund infrastructure in Canada by announcing the creation of the Canada infrastructure bank. The bank will allow the federal government to “crowd in” private sector investment in infrastructure through loans, loan guarantees, and equity participation. It will create more options and opportunities for provinces, territories, and municipalities across the country to undertake transformative infrastructure projects, such as major public transit in our largest cities, energy transmission corridors, major corridor projects, and much more.

The bank's funds are over and above the commitment we made to double infrastructure funding to approximately $180 billion over 12 years. By using private capital to build those new projects, public money is freed up to build more public infrastructure. Most importantly, it offers our funding partners a new tool to help meet their pressing infrastructure needs.

The Government of Canada recognizes that in order to compete globally, our communities need to be at their absolute best. That is why we are moving forward on the Smart Cities Challenge, which will challenge communities across Canada to develop integrated, innovative, evidence-based solutions to improve quality of life for their residents.

The challenge draws from similar competitions around the world and aims to accelerate the planning and adoption of innovative urban infrastructure. It will be an opportunity for communities to innovate, take risks, and think outside the box. Ultimately, the challenge is another tool that will help support long-term transformative changes across Canada.

In conclusion, the Government of Canada remains committed to building a fairer, more inclusive country that reflects the priorities of Canadians and reflects the priorities of the residents of my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge. The government understands that change must result in the kind of growth that benefits all Canadians at every stage of their lives—young Canadians, newcomers to Canada, working Canadians, seniors, veterans, and indigenous peoples.

We have made significant progress over the last year investing in projects that build healthier, more liveable communities, with cleaner air and water, and better care for our kids and grandkids. Budget 2017 is the next step in the Government of Canada's ambitious plan to invest in Canada's future, putting Canada's talented, skilled, and creative people at the heart of a more innovative future economy.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech was interesting because some of the information that he relayed in his speech is not quite accurate. I just wanted to make note of that and then ask a question.

He is saying that infrastructure projects are already making a huge difference in communities. I want to bring to his attention that as of today, 1,432 infrastructure projects have been announced and reannounced, and 1,344 of these projects have not been under construction.

My question is this. He referred to the infrastructure bank as a new tool to leverage private sector dollars. I am wondering if the member realizes that PPP Canada is already set up, is in place to leverage private sector dollars, and has already generated billions in infrastructure projects across this country.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our infrastructure program that we are ramping up and announcing projects for with the $180 billion over 12 years includes the York-Spadina subway extension in the City of Vaughan, for which I had the pleasure of announcing a $30-million inter-regional bus terminal. It is under construction, with shovels in the ground. I am proud to say that.

I will say this on the infrastructure bank. If we look around the world, we see the liquidity that is available from private investors to invest in a country like Canada. It is an opportunity for us to leverage those private capital dollars that are available to accelerate infrastructure and to build Canada. We have an infrastructure gap and we are addressing it.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we are approaching budget 2017, it is clear that the Liberals are looking for a way to create some type of revenue. The NDP has provided them with a wonderful way to create some revenue in our country, which is to close the tax loopholes and eliminate the tax havens. That would bring money back into Canada that could support the system.

The Liberals have some out-of-control spending for which they will need to be accountable to Canadians and to people in their ridings. I am deeply concerned that what we will see is a privatization of our airports and ports. This will end up costing all Canadians more money when they travel and could cause potentially dangerous health and safety issues as well as issues at the airport.

Privatizing our public services is not the way to go. Our public airports currently send $1 billion back to Ottawa every year. We cannot recoup that cost if we sell them off. In Ontario we have a prime example of the mistakes that the Liberals have made around privatization. We just have to look at what is happening to the cost of hydro here in Ontario.

Can the member speak to the mandate that he feels that he and the Liberals have from Canadians to privatize public services in Canada?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our mandate is to invest in Canadians. Whether it is through the Canada child benefit, whether it is through the increased guaranteed income supplement, whether it is through middle-class tax cuts, whether it is through asking the 1% to pay for a bit more, our mandate is to help hard-working middle-class Canadians and Canadians who want to join the middle class.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge for his speech and in particular for his focus on infrastructure.

Dduring my time in municipal politics, it was extremely frustrating over the last 10 years when municipalities would go to the federal government to look for infrastructure funding. It was a game of going to different conferences, sitting in front of ministers, and basically begging for money

The system is quite different now. The government has a new direction, one that is focused on providing predictable, sustainable funding for municipalities so that they can plan their infrastructure needs for the future.

I wonder if my colleague would comment on how that will impact his community.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government is a government that consults and our government is a government that listens. That is exactly what we have done with municipalities. We have sat down with them and we have listened to them. They know best what their needs are. That is what is our government is doing: listening to them and responding, and ensuring that they have the resources available to continue to build up their cities so their citizens can get home earlier at night. They can take their kids to soccer and they can get to work faster.

That is what we will continue to do. We will continue to partner with all levels of government, whether it is provincial, municipal, and, in some areas, regional.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I will be sharing my time with the member for South Surrey—White Rock.

I am honoured to rise to speak to the opposition motion presented by the leader of the official opposition.

Tomorrow we will hear from the Minister of Finance the government's plan on the future of Canada's economy and for all Canadians. Our ask of the government is simple: no further tax hikes; measures to address youth unemployment; a plan to see the budget balance by 2019; no plan to sell Canadian airports that involve revenues to finance the Canada Infrastructure Bank; selling to investors influenced by foreign governments; and no hikes to user fees for our taxpayers and travellers.

In budget 2016, we heard a great deal from the government about how it was planning to grow the middle class and help families. However, what did we actually see and what were the end-user effects?

As I have said often in the House, I am the mother of five children. Issues such as the cost of post-secondary education, employment opportunities, affordable housing and taxes are commonly discussed. I want to know that my children have a chance at a good future and a chance to have the same opportunities that I have had.

In a report circulated by the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, we have seen statistics comparing 2012 and 2016 data. In 2012, 48% of respondents stated that they felt the next generation's standard of living would be lower. We have actually seen an increase in this number in 2016, and over 58% of Canadians now indicate that they feel the next generation's standard of living will be lower. That is a huge increase, especially when we see these elements that the government is pushing. This same document stated similar findings when asked, “Canadians are increasingly feeling left out of the middle class”.

In 2009, 63.3% felt they were part of the middle class, with 28.9% indicating they were in the working class or poorer. In 2016, just three months following the federal budget and changes to the Canada child benefit and to the tax rate, only 48% felt they were part of the middle class, and a hike to 44.3% felt they were part of the working class or poorer. To me, these are not good results. This document indicates that job insecurity is increasing, saving for retirement is harder, and the growth has not been inclusive.

I would like to focus on the future and on the future of our country. Tomorrow we will potentially hear about a plan focused on the national child program and social housing. We will hear from the Liberal government plans to create new jobs through innovation investments. We may hear how the Liberals are planning on selling capital assets to finance an infrastructure bank. And we will hear that Canadians will be burdened with more taxes, whether it is today or in the future.

The 2016 budget introduced the Canada child benefit, while eliminating the universal child care benefit and the Canada child tax benefit. We saw the cancellation of important tax credits to families, including the child fitness tax credit and arts credit. We saw income splitting eliminated for families. While some families may be receiving more money through tax benefits, is the government making a plan to help families in the long-term?

I am also proud to be from a riding with many smaller municipalities that rely on volunteers, volunteers who include firefighters. In this budget, I fear that important tax credits, including the tax credit for volunteer firefighters and search and rescue workers, will be eliminated. We have to think this. Without these credits, what will be the impact to municipalities like Central Elgin and the municipality of Bayham in my riding that have volunteer firefighters, who not only help with fires but as well the search and rescue missions on the shores of Lake Erie? What will these effects be?

There are also murmurs of the elimination on public transit tax credits, and extremely important in my community, the trades person tool deduction. At the end of the day, people will be paying more taxes.

Through the HUMA committee, we studied a poverty reduction strategy, and the committee is finalizing a report on the findings. Some witnesses clearly indicated that important factors such as skills development, high taxes and unreliable income were issues that were not being dealt with. When looking at some of the strategies that members of the government have spoken of in the past year, we see band-aid solutions. This will is not lead the country to growth and prosperity. We need solid plans, not just more spending.

The government promised to remove the cap on post-secondary education for indigenous people. We know that education will provide important skills development and knowledge that will help those living on a reserve. However, we have not seen or heard anything about about this important issued in the past 18 months. When reviewing the "Pre-budget tour: The State of the Middle Class", PowerPoint presentation put out by the minister, it notes that certain groups remain particularly vulnerable to poverty, specifically indigenous peoples on-reserve. Therefore, will the government do the right thing and remove this cap?

Youth employment is also a huge concern. In the 2015 election, the Liberal Party focused on youth employment, while scolding the Conservative government for its initiatives and belittling the efforts of the Canada summer jobs programs. Trust me, it happened in my own debates. However, in reality, increases to temporary work for summer students is all we have seen from the government. We need to ensure that we are looking at the labour force and matching it to the skills development. Has the government taken any of these steps to fill the gap in the labour force by ensuring we are graduating students from programs where employment opportunities exist?

I currently have two children in post-secondary education. I know the expenses that are incurred for each year of education, especially since we assist with some of those costs. Those costs include housing, tuition and food. My son pays $950 a month in rent in the city of Toronto so he can go to George Brown College. Each year, costs for each of my children are approximately $17,000. What are we doing to ensure that students have employment to assist not only in their current education, but down the road when they try to pay off these loans? Are we going to ensure that when our children graduate, there is actually going to be employment so they can get on their own two feet?

We know the best way out of poverty is a sustainable, reliable, and decent income. The most reliable method of gaining this income is through a job. We support job creation through tax breaks to small businesses, and avoiding needless government debt.

What is the government going to do to assist Canadians to get ahead? If we are looking at the government's record, we see the following: a decrease to disposable income through the Canada pension plan tax hikes; the cancellation of the small business tax rate; potential taxes on health and dental benefits; and potential user fees. The first three of the four points hurt employers. These employers are the people who employ Canadians in the private sector. It is the private sector that keeps our economy healthy.

According to a study published by the Fraser Institute, Canada has put itself at a disadvantage to attract and retain skilled labour, investment, and entrepreneurs, due to personal income tax rates that in response, truly failed to meet the expected increase in revenues to the government. Therefore, what we have seen is less revenue and more spending.

We have heard for months from the new administration in the United States that it will be focusing on lowering taxes and right now, we do not have a plan to compete with this new reality.

I live in a community with U.S. borders, both to the east and west of my riding, and along the 401 corridor. Over 500,000 vehicles per day travel this highway, with billions of dollars of goods transported through this corridor. My area is filled with agricultural producers and manufacturing facilities that rely on trade and export to the United States. If Canada cannot remain competitive, what will happen to these jobs and to the goods that cost more to produce in Canada?

We need to have a plan to be competitive, and I do not see the Liberal government creating a solid plan that can be implemented immediately. The government must come forward with a low tax plan to remain competitive that in turn will create high-paying jobs.

Just yesterday, I read a quote in the National Post. It said:

Middle-income Canadians may take comfort in the Liberal message, but this messaging hasn’t yet resulted in policies to increase median incomes. At some point, middle-class Canadians may start to wonder when the Liberal message will finally be backed up with cash.

To me, this means income and employment opportunities. I am concerned that the government's plan does not consider any of these factors and we are jeopardizing the future of young Canadians, families, and indigenous people. We need to ensure there is job security, the ability for businesses to invest and grow, and for us to be competitive.

Will the budget do what is necessary for Canadians as a whole? I guess we will find out tomorrow what the government is planning for its future and the future of Canada. I am hoping it does not come with a $30 billion price tag for the next generation.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party is putting forward a document today that would have us essentially rewrite the fiscal and economic framework of the government. We know that elections have consequences. What the Liberal Party proposed to Canadians was relief for the middle class, looking after our most vulnerable in the form of the guaranteed income supplement, and looking after our manufacturing and innovative sectors with job training and an ability to grow our businesses in Canada. There is a renewed focus on families, with nine out of 10 families better off with the Canada child benefit, which they can now choose to spend as they wish. One would argue sometimes that this is a Conservative ideal, but I guess it is not something they can support because they voted against it.

My colleague is from southwestern Ontario. We have put all these measures in place that will help families in her very riding. Would the member not agree that these Liberal policies have been good for southwestern Ontario and for Canada generally?

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

Mr. Speaker, let me go back to the statistics I just read from the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development. We have seen a 10% increase in the number of families that feel they are no longer a part of the middle class. If this program is working, then people would not feel they were doing worse. These are documents from the member's own minister. We have to be aware of these things.

With respect to the child benefit, our party did not necessarily vote against the child benefit. We voted against a $30 billion deficit. It is great for those members to sit over there and tweak out what they think we are pulling apart. The government talks about lowering taxes on the middle class, but it forgets that it has a $30 billion price tag attached to this. It is going to be my five children and the children of all members and all Canadians who will be paying for this outrageous spending.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is a mother of five children, with two in post-secondary education. Our Conservative government did more for post-secondary students in the history of our country. We believed in our kids. We gave kids a chance to get that first job through post-secondary education. The Liberal government has done the exact opposite. We have seen the numbers in the last year. They show that youth in our country have no hope at all.

My colleague comes from an agriculture area. Let us remember that a year ago the Liberals never mentioned agriculture once in their budget. Will the Liberals mention tomorrow that our food producers are important to our country? Does my colleague from Elgin—Middlesex—London think the word “agriculture” will be mentioned tomorrow?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have personally held five different agricultural round tables in my community. The agricultural sector currently employs about 20% of the people who live in my riding. Out of 111,000 people, 20% are employers or employees in the agriculture sector.

We have to be aware of the need to harmonize things. We need to recognize there are some important things we need to address, especially since many of our products, especially those in southwestern Ontario, are exported to the United States. If we cannot have trade and if we cannot be competitive, then those exports will not exist. If the cost of labour and the cost of everything that we do is higher in Canada, then we will not be competitive.

I recognize there are some great programs available for agricultural producers and we need to continue to support them. I have put forward a paper to the Minister of Agriculture. I want to ensure he hears the voices of the people from southwestern Ontario, especially those in my riding of Elgin--Middlesex--London, for all sectors, including supply management, our feathers and everything of that sort.

I am not scared by any of the woes and things over there. It is fine. I support the agricultural industry and I always will. I sure hope the government will be on side.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak today to the Conservative opposition day motion that states:

That, given the failure of the government to achieve the economic and employment objectives presented in Budget 2016, and given the growing protectionist and competitive threat from the United States, the House call on the government to ensure that Budget 2017 includes: (a) no further tax hikes on Canadian families, businesses, seniors or students; (b) immediate measures to encourage companies to hire young Canadians and address the youth unemployment crisis; (c) a credible plan to return to a balanced budget by 2019 as promised to Canadians; and (d) no plan to sell Canadian airports that involves (i) using the revenues to finance the Canada Infrastructure Bank, (ii) selling them to investors or enterprises that are under the political influence of foreign governments, (iii) higher user fees for Canadian taxpayers and travellers.

I felt that it is important that we all know what the motion clearly states and what we are talking about here today. As we know, tomorrow the Liberal government will table its second budget, a budget that is expected to include tax hikes for Canadians, a budget that is expected to sell Canadian airports to foreign investors in order to raise funds to finance the Liberals' infrastructure bank even though we have P3 Canada, which was specifically set up to leverage private sector dollars for infrastructure projects. In fact, P3 Canada has leveraged $6.6 billion for infrastructure, which would not require the government to sell off our ports or airports.

As the official opposition critic for infrastructure, communities, and urban affairs, I have been following the Liberals' infrastructure plan very closely, and I use that term very loosely. I have several concerns around the continued announcements on infrastructure spending and the number of projects that are actually under construction.

Despite numerous announcements and re-announcements of infrastructure projects, the Liberals have actually failed to begin construction, create jobs, and grow the economy as promised to Canadians during the election. The only thing that is growing is the deficit. The Liberals are burdening Canadians in debt with no possibility of a balanced budget until 2055. As of today, there have been 1,432 infrastructure projects announced and re-announced by the Liberal government. Of these projects, 1,344 have not—I repeat, have not—started construction. That is 94% of the infrastructure projects. There are more than 1,300 projects not under construction, not creating jobs, and not stimulating the economy.

The Liberals like to claim that they are investing more money in infrastructure than ever before, simply because they like announcements and of course we know they love photo ops. Yet, they have announced more projects in their first year in office than any government previously, not built, not constructed, not growing, just announced. The difference here is this. The Conservative government actually managed to build infrastructure, not just announce it. In fact, under the Conservative government, we did announce 7,802 projects and we constructed more than 7,300 of those projects. Some 94% are complete, and that means jobs. In fact, that means 1.1 million jobs were created. We completed 94% of our infrastructure projects before we left office, while the Liberal government has not been able to start 94% of its infrastructure projects.

When the Conservatives came into power, the federal government had been spending approximately $500 million a year on infrastructure. By the time we left office, we were investing over $5 billion per year in infrastructure. We still managed to balance the budget and leave a surplus. I have provided these details today because infrastructure is directly related to today's opposition motion. Canadians need to understand exactly where their money has gone and how much is being spent to create a $30 billion deficit.

During the election, the Liberals promised Canadians that their small $10 billion a year deficit would pay for unprecedented levels of infrastructure spending in their communities, would stimulate the economy, and would create thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of jobs. All of this would be over the first three years in office, and in the fourth year they would balance the budget. Instead, Canadians got a $30 billion deficit in the first year and admittedly an unprecedented level of infrastructure announcements and no balanced budget. We heard from the Prime Minister numerous times that budgets balance themselves, but as every Canadian knows, budgets do not balance themselves. The Liberals failed to get infrastructure funding to communities in 2016, and in fact they have frozen nearly $1 billion that, according to budget 2016, should have gone to communities last year. Instead, they have allowed it to lapse, one thing they said they would never do. In fact there are many things they said they would never do, but this is one. Instead of sending the money to communities through the gas tax fund, as they promised during the election and which is written in their platform, the Liberals decided to roll it over into next year's budget.

In receiving and reviewing the 2017 main estimates, the parliamentary budget officer stated in that report that $2.5 billion worth of infrastructure projects cannot be located. This is money that according to budget 2016 should have gone to communities next year. Another parliamentary budget officer's report states that the Liberals' infrastructure plan has no way to measure performance, has virtually no transparency on how the money is being spent, has shortchanged communities billions of dollars for local infrastructure, and has failed to stimulate the Canadian economy. That is all from the PBO. There have been four independent reports citing the same concerns, including the latest Senate report.

We hear over and over again the Liberals' talking points of how they have cut taxes for the middle class, but they also ignore the fact that they have introduced numerous new taxes on the very same Canadians, like the new national carbon tax, new taxes on savings accounts, new taxes on children's arts programs, taxes on tuition and textbooks, taxes on children's fitness and sports programs, higher CPP taxes, higher EI premiums, higher small-business tax rates, higher taxes on campgrounds. Also, coming soon, capital gains taxes are on the table, airports and ports are up for sale, and we do not know yet about the health and dental benefits. The list goes on. This is what Canadians need to know when the Liberal government tells them it is growing the middle class and helping those who want to join it.

We need a plan that cuts taxes for Canadians. We need a plan that gets Canada's spending back under control and brings in a balanced budget. We need a plan that will support small businesses and encourage companies to hire and create jobs, especially for young Canadians. We need a plan that does not include selling off some of Canada's most valuable assets. Unfortunately, a solid, transparent, and accountable plan for Canadians' future is not what we can expect from the Liberals' 2017 budget tomorrow. Therefore, I urge my Liberal colleagues across the way to work with all parties in this House and come up with a real plan, a plan that puts Canadians first.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member across the way says she wants to see a plan. There is Bill C-2, a tax cut for Canada's middle class. How did the Conservative Party vote on that plan? The Conservatives voted against that plan.

Then we have Conservatives across the way talking about how they want to give advice to the government on balanced budgets. That has to be one of the weirdest things, because the Harper government never got it right. It had deficit after deficit, and it even created the deficit prior to the last recession coming into place. This government does not need to take any advice from the Conservative Party with respect to balanced budgets.

Why did the member vote against Bill C-2, which is a great tax decrease plan?