Debates of May 4th, 2017

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will continue my questions, since I have been given another opportunity.

I would categorize this implementation bill as an omnibus bill. It is full of things that are not necessarily budget related, including changes to the Investment Act and changes around parental leave.

There is not much in this implementation of budgets. A lot of other things have been crammed together.

However, my comment on one of the insertions in this omnibus bill is around the changes the Employment Insurance Act. Here is an example where the government really could help families, particularly in my riding. Instead of increasing the benefits, instead of making it easier for people to access the employment insurance program and making it better, which I need to remind people is funded by employers and employees, not the government, the government has just extended what I would say is not a very high level of benefits over a longer period of time.

In my riding, many people will be unable to access this extended parental leave because they just cannot afford to live on that amount of money.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may remember that we did in fact help to boost the unemployment benefits, particularly for the people who were very hard hit in Alberta. We are looking at a situation right now with the prospect of people right across the country being very hard hit as a result of the new sanctions, the new tariffs being brought on our softwood lumber. I believe, and it has been commented on by a number of observers, that the government has had to keep its powder dry in some respects. We do not know the level of service or the level of support that will be required to help Canadians who will find themselves potentially in very difficult situations simply because of what has been going on with our largest trading partner.

It would be good if we could do it all, but we are doing the most important things first.

[Neil Ellis, Liberal, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-44, the budget implementation act.

I would first like to thank the hon. member for Fleetwood—Port Kells for sharing his time with me. He was a teenager when Canada celebrated its 100th birthday and I was a day away from my fifth birthday, so I can learn from the member and all that he has done for his great riding.

Bill C-44, the budget implementation act, and its unprecedented investments in infrastructure represent more than $180 billion over 12 years. Infrastructure, quite simply, is the providence of the most basic and necessary foundations of all our lives. There is a direct correlation between the condition of our travel and trade corridors, our roads, trade corridors, energy transmission, utility or public transit services, and our ability to thrive, excel, and innovate.

Budget 2016 sets the focus for the first phase of our government's plan to recapitalize and modernize our existing infrastructure assets. By keeping our foundational systems in the best possible repair, we are making it easier for Canadians to navigate their larger life ambitions, whether that is to protect and study our country's diverse environments, to develop our key resources, to build, manage, or expand on existing services, or to connect with friends and family in this immense and beautiful country we live in.

That is why I am so proud that budget 2017 ensures that our infrastructure, as a national foundation for the diverse and vibrant lives that Canadians lead, is strong. Budget 2016 initiated upgrades to long-neglected critical infrastructure. It also enabled us to sign bilateral agreements with all provinces and territories, as well as partner with indigenous and municipal stakeholders to plan and deliver infrastructure projects. Phase one of Canada's new infrastructure plan included $11.9 billion over five years that started in 2016.

Since November 2015, we have approved over 2,000 projects for a combined investment of over $21 billion. As part of the fall economic update, we are investing $81 billion over the next 11 years, starting in 2017-18. We have also proposed the creation of the Canada infrastructure bank, an arm's-length crown corporation, which would allow us to attract and mobilize private capital funding from world-leading institutional investors.

Funds held by the bank would be released to our provincial, territorial, and municipal partners after successful and innovative financial negotiations in order to supplement our wider public investment toward infrastructure projects. In doing so, our government is encouraging an innovative process of delivering key investments for our most vital sectors, including $3.4 billion for public transit, $5 billion for investments in water, waste-water, and green infrastructure that supports a clean growth economy, and $3.4 billion for social infrastructure that promotes affordable housing

As for public transit, we all know that when it is easier to reach our destinations, it increases our productivity in our workplaces and also the enjoyment of our leisure time. This is why budget 2017 has enabled us to approve 744 public transit projects for federal funding.

I am thrilled that my local riding, the Bay of Quinte, has received over $1.4 million for transit in the city of Belleville, $169,000 for Quinte West, and $22,000 for Prince Edward County, respectively. I was proud to read in today's paper that transit in the city of Belleville is up about 10% this year already. It proves that these investments build our economy and create better lives for the people who live there.

This federal funding will enable upgrades and expansion of existing transit services across the Bay of Quinte region. These investments will generate feasibility studies on existing transit usage, modernization of vehicle storage facilities, creation of additional bus shelters, and expansion of coverage as well as the transit services offered. Across Canada, 132 transit systems will receive similar funding to help build and connect public transit across our communities. By offering more reliable, accessible, and connected public transit options, we are allowing our communities to lessen their ecological footprint, but simultaneously take larger steps toward improving the ways we live, move, and work.

I will now turn to the clean water and waste-water fund. We all know that when we can trust our sources of water or the practices associated with processing all the residential, commercial, and industrial forms of waste that we make, we are able to rest easier knowing that our health and safety are not in question. This is why budget 2017 has set aside funding to expand 219 waste-water systems and to rehabilitate another 328. Few of us like to think of what exactly is hidden, treated, and recycled through these systems, but none of us can ignore the importance of these crucial arteries of infrastructure. Without proper sewer, air venting, and water intake mechanisms in place, we are unable to deal practically or safely with the most basic aspects of human life.

Notable projects include the Bragg Creek flood mitigation in Alberta, and the sanitary servicing to reduce phosphorus to Lake Simcoe-Royal Oak, Bay, Cottage in Barrie, Ontario. This reminds us all that our rural, remote, and urban communities need clean water for their residents, for their agriculture, commercial, and industrial processes, and especially for emergency services like firefighting. These projects and others can encourage efficient water use and assist the key gatekeepers of our rivers, streams, and watersheds and waterways to provide safe water intake and treatment for all Canadians.

Regarding green technologies, all across Canada other projects that generate the use or development of clean and sustainable products or services have also received funding as part of our wider initiative to build safe, inclusive, and sustainable communities. With the support of a low-carbon green economy, projects like upgrades to the Red Rock waste system treatment plant in Red Rock, Ontario, illustrate the success of budget 2017 in supporting the acceleration and adaptability of our communities, whether urban, rural, or remote.

These projects are just a few of the strong examples of our plan to encourage intergovernmental stewardship of existing resources or energies and use of emerging technologies, and draw from multi-faceted expertise of Canadians going forward. We know that in order to generate and share the very best practices, ideas, and innovations in products, culture, or agricultural fare and connect with our fellow Canadians, whether locally or over long distances, we must ensure that our infrastructure is greener, accessible, and technologically equipped to offer the highest levels of service to our citizens, residents, and visitors. We owe this as much to ourselves as we do to our future generations. The stronger our infrastructure is, the stronger our own capacity to shape our future becomes.

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

Mr. Speaker, the budget is a very important document for any government. It establishes the priorities, and I believe that the first priority for this government has been Canada's middle class, ultimately believing that if we have a healthier middle class, we will have a healthier economy. We have seen strong governance in the many different departments that have had such a positive impact in many different ways. For me personally, one of the most significant things we saw in the past number of months was the agreement in the health care accord, where virtually all provinces, except my own Province of Manitoba, unfortunately, have health care agreements in place. That is something that is important for me.

When my colleague reflects on the number of things that have taken place over the last while, what would he say is one of the more important issues, outside of the budget and the details of the budget, but just something in principle?

[Neil Ellis, Liberal, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as some of us here are aware, being a former mayor of a small municipality, I would say it is important for us to have suitable funding and programming so that our mayors can plan forward. When we made the transit announcement in the city of Belleville, the mayor was so happy because this allowed him to update the transit system, not only in technology but in bus shelters and technology in hand-held devices so we can tell when the transit is more efficient. This is going to increase ridership in my community.

It is also important for my college. My riding is the home of Loyalist College. We are all well aware of students and their transportation needs. It is important to run an efficient transit system to our college. It is also important for our industrial park. We all know that many industries in our industrial park need seven-day transit services, and this enables the mayors to plan forward.

The mayors in my constituency are excited about infrastructure money that they can depend on, money that has been coming, money that is making projects in their communities to determine growth.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and a lot of government members wax on about all the money in the budget for social housing. I notice in the budget there is more money for charging stations for millionaires and their Teslas over the next four years than there is for support for northern housing and support for indigenous people not living on reserves or federal lands being made available for social housing.

How can the member say that the needs of millionaire Tesla owners are much more important than these respective needs?

[Neil Ellis, Liberal, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, lots of money is going to those areas through budgets. There is always more money that could go to other things.

Highway 401 goes through my riding. The member talked about electrically powered cars. I feel that as the community goes and how things are, we as leaders should look at alternative technologies. The member referred to millionaires driving electrically powered cars. Some of my family members drive electrically powered cars but they are not Teslas.

In general, the member's question is valid, but having said that, we have to look at the big picture.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, many members in this place are shocked to see in this budget implementation bill what the Liberals are proposing for the parliamentary budget officer. When his colleagues participated with me on OGGO, the government operations committee, on reforming the scrutiny of estimates and supply, they made a dissenting report and in that report they requested that the government, the Conservative government at the time, take immediate action to make the parliamentary budget officer an officer of Parliament. What happened to the Liberal Party and its belief in the independence of the PBO?

[Neil Ellis, Liberal, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I do not sit on the committee the member referred to. I feel that the answer was given today by the hon. government House leader. In the sense of the member's question, she answered that suggestions are coming forward and we offer her suggestions on how we can make our policies and legislation better.

It is about how the House reacts. I have listened to everybody being so negative on the budget, and I know that is the role of the opposition, but I like to look at positive things. Together, as leaders and as members of both parties, we could co-operate more and make better public policy.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity today to give some of my thoughts on this budget.

I really believe this budget is a lot of bafflegab and bluster. I believe it is short on substance and that it saddles future generations of Canadians with massive debt. One of the biggest challenges is that we will be putting the burden on our young people, on our kids and our kids' kids, to pay off the massive debt that we will incur over the next few years.

The Prime Minister campaigned on the promise to run a modest $10-billion deficit, but it was not long after the election that he broke his promise. He pledged to return to a balanced budget, and that pledge has been completely abandoned. To top things off, our national debt is spiralling out of control.

Before I continue, I want to mention that I will be sharing my time with the member for Lethbridge, if I may.

This budget is simply nickel-and-diming the middle class. It is making the cost of living more expensive for middle-class Canadian families. It is becoming obvious to us in this place and to Canadians across the country that the Liberal economic plan is not working. Budget 2016 failed to create jobs and failed to grow our economy; budget 2017 is just more of the same.

The Financial Post reports that in 2016, the economy had one of its most difficult years, with a growth of merely 1.3%. It goes on to say that it does not get much better looking forward and that the federal government's own Department of Finance predicts economic growth will average just 1.6% out to 2030. Further, the report notes that growth expectations from private sector economists have consistently declined since the Liberal government came into power. Even more troubling is that the Liberal economic update forecasts have consistently decreased, and have now been downgraded to 1.6% in budget 2017.

Our party leader correctly noted that the government's own numbers show that the economy is growing no faster than before its spending binge began. She also correctly noted that Canadians are working fewer hours and that their wages are not keeping up with the cost of living.

The Prime Minister should not be surprised by all of this. He cannot expect different results by using the same old Liberal tax-and-spend methods.

As was the case with the 2016 budget, this year the Liberals have once again abandoned small businesses. Small businesses are the largest employers of Canadians across the country. Almost every business needs a tax break, but when it comes to spirits, wine, and beer, the Liberals have decided to increase taxes by 2%. This tax hike will have a very negative impact on wineries, craft breweries, and small distilleries in the riding of Niagara West, and consumers will once again have to pay more at the cash register because of more new Liberal taxes.

I have received numerous letters from stakeholders in the wine industry who are pleading with the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance to reconsider this ill-conceived tax hike. Wine is among the highest value-added agricultural products in Ontario, and many of our grape growers may face economic hardship in the face of this tax increase. Wine, as one of Ontario's signature industries, should be supported and promoted by our federal government, not selectively targeted.

The long-term impacts on wineries across Canada will be immense, as will they be on others in the value chain, including restaurant workers, bartenders, delivery truck drivers, and others. For the sake of the long-term survival of the Canadian wine industry, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance should pay attention and consider reversing this tax hike immediately.

The wine industry is not the only victim of Liberal overtaxing. Others will feel the Liberal pinch as well. With respect to public transit users, for example, roughly 1.8 million Canadians will see higher taxes and higher prices for bus passes because the Liberals have decided to get rid of the public transit tax credit. A Toronto Transit Commission analysis showed that the elimination of this credit will mean 2.5 million fewer people will ride the TTC in 2017. Uber and ride-sharing services will become more expensive because the Liberals have decided to slap a tax on them.

Others include donated medicines; child care; small business owners, including farmers, fishers, doctors, lawyers, and accountants; oil and gas companies; and the tourism industry.

These are all in addition to the Liberal tax hikes last year on gas and home heating and Canadians' savings accounts, the implementation of more payroll taxes for businesses, and the ending of tax breaks for children's soccer and piano lessons. It seems that no matter what the Liberals do, they always somehow end up raising taxes on average Canadians and plunging our country into more debt and deficit.

It also seems strange that the Liberals are calling budget 2017 their innovation budget. There is really nothing new or innovative in this budget. Many of the programs are recycled and repackaged. What is becoming clearer is that they have no plan, no commitment, and no ideas on how to create jobs and grow our economy.

However, here is the kicker. They are spending billions on buzzwords and catchphrases. Mr. Speaker, unless you are a venture capital catalyst or a supercluster, this budget is simply not for you.

Innovation thrives when businesses and entrepreneurs are free from excessive taxes, regulation, and interference, but this budget takes the opposite approach. It picks the winners and just does not really care about anyone else.

Here is what really worries me. The Prime Minister promised to run modest deficits for a couple of years. What this has turned into is borrowing $143 billion over six years. If that is a modest deficit, then I do not want to see or hear what he considers a large one.

What Canadians must keep in mind is that the national credit card that the Prime Minister keeps swiping works in a very similar way to their own credit cards—namely, the money needs to be paid back, and paid back with interest. Incredible amounts of money have already been borrowed. What this means is that not only this generation but generations to come will need to pay the principal and interest on the debt being racked up now. Canadians turning 18 years old today will not see a balanced budget until they are in their fifties. Essentially, our children and even our grandchildren will be on the hook for paying off debt that the Prime Minister is needlessly racking up now.

This is in addition to making all Canadians pay more taxes for virtually everything, and it explains only half the vicious cycle the Prime Minister has been inflicting upon us. What happens when the debt cannot be paid back? Will he raise taxes even more? Round and round we will go again.

With all this spending of billions of dollars on our national credit card, the Prime Minister could not seem to find a sufficient amount of money for our men and women in uniform. For the second year in a row, the budget contains very little for them. Budget 2017 makes major cuts to defence, despite demands from the U.S. that NATO members commit to spend at least 2% of their GDP.

The government is deferring $8.5 billion in equipment purchases, having already deferred $3.7 billion in the past budget. The Department of National Defence now faces a $12-billion shortfall. It certainly does not look like national defence is a priority for this Liberal government. In an era of so much Liberal spending, it is of great concern that the largest cuts are consistently at the expense of the Canadian Armed Forces, raising the question of whether the Liberals believe that Canada needs the ability to defend itself and our allies from clear threats such as Russia, North Korea, Iran, and ISIS.

Recent examples, including the Liberals' decision to pull our CF-18s out of the fight against ISIS, their preference for fourth-generation fighter jets, their lack of increased support for our Ukrainian allies, and their failure to advance important procurement projects, all suggest that the Prime Minister is of the view that other countries should be relied upon to do the heavy lifting.

With growing United States pressure for increased budgets, Canada's allies have committed to modernizing their military capabilities and spending 2% of their GDP on defence. Our Prime Minister has not followed suit, putting us in a very precarious position. Considering the clear global threats to our security, we need the appropriate investments in Canada's national defence and we need them now. The finance minister does not seem to agree, stating that the government believes the military is appropriately provisioned.

We are living in dangerous times, when our security as a nation should be regarded as a matter of the utmost importance. By not allocating the necessary funds to our armed forces, we are playing a dangerous game and putting our country at constant risk. lt is simple: the Liberals are asking Canada's military to do more with less. This cannot stand. On this side of the aisle, we will continue to fight for the resources that our Canadian Armed Forces deserve.

If the Liberals will not listen to us here in this place, then I hope they will listen to the hard-working Canadians that this budget will directly affect. According to a Nanos poll reported by The Globe and Mail, most Canadians are giving the Liberal government's second budget a thumbs down. What this poll found is that Canadians are expressing a strong desire for the Liberals to lay out a plan for eliminating the deficit after the budget, there is no mention of when the federal books will be balanced. It is no surprise that only 5% of Canadians had a positive view of the budget.

Nik Nanos himself said:

I think the fact that only one out of every 20 Canadians had an outright positive view of the federal budget should give the Liberals pause because it suggests that the budget, at least for a number of Canadians, was a disappointment.

When Canadians were asked if it is important to them that the federal government have a plan in place to eliminate the deficit, four in five Canadians agreed that a plan should be in place. The reality is that the Liberals have no plan.

We, as the official opposition and as Conservatives, are the voice of the taxpayers and will hold the Liberals to account. We will not and cannot stay silent while the Prime Minister nickel-and-dimes Canadians with no plan whatsoever to create jobs and grow our economy. Too much is at stake, and we hope he listens and understands that so far his ideas are not working.

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

Mr. Speaker, the opposition often raises the issue of small businesses. I would like to share with the member a very important industry in Canada, focusing on Winnipeg, and that is the taxi industry.

The taxi industry provides hundreds of jobs to wonderful, hard-working people in Winnipeg, and there is a sense of unfairness as to why the taxi industry has to pay GST, for example. One of the initiatives in this budget was to recognize that Uber has a responsibility to pay GST. For whatever reasons, the Conservatives have come out against that particular tax, yet small businesses in many different regions of Canada, especially where there is a healthy taxi industry, are very supportive of that particular initiative because at least it makes the playing field a little more level.

Does the member not believe that where one can, one should promote that level playing field, and that if one pays the tax, the other should also pay the tax?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of trying to tax everyone more, I suggest we should try to tax small businesses less.

Small businesses have to deal with a number of things. In my speech, I talked about regulations being one of those things, but if we start looking at things like a carbon tax or CPP, we see that there are a number of different taxes that by themselves will not necessary hurt businesses, but an accumulation of multiple taxes and regulations makes it very difficult for businesses to survive and thrive when times are tough.

I would encourage the government, as it continues to spend money on innovation, to realize that taxation is also a part of that. Instead of trying to make everybody pay more taxes, I would encourage it to find ways to lower taxes for all businesses to make it easier for them to survive.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to the matter of taxes. As members know, people in the spirits and microdistillery industry have been calling for lower excise duties on 100% Canadian products for years, but the government has refused. Not only has the government refused, but it also told them today that there would be an immediate increase in excise duties. In fact, excise duties will continue to increase indefinitely based on the consumer price index.

Could my colleague talk about this Liberal proposal, which, instead of helping our microdistilleries that produce fine Canadian products, will impose more taxes on them, with no end in sight to the increase in excise duties?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had a private member's bill on the excise tax in 2005. When Conservatives became government in 2006, we eliminated the excise tax on 100% VQA products. We also did that for microbreweries as well. As a result of what happened, there was unprecedented growth in the wine and microbrewery industry over the last 10 years.

I do not believe that was only because of reducing the excise tax, as there were a number of other factors involved, but what I hear from the microbreweries, micro-distilleries, and the wineries is that we should start looking at ways to reinvest. The distilleries were concerned that they did not get a break. They have been looking for a break, because they use Canadian products. Why they are looking for the break is not so they can stuff their pockets with more money but so they can reinvest in their businesses. That is one of the challenges we have to address.

I appreciate the money that is available for innovation funds, but not every business is going to have access to those funds. We are talking about the digital industry and a number of other industries that I think are important, but the challenge is that the normal, boring businesses, the businesses that are maybe not that sexy, also need access to capital. What happened with the wine and microbrewing industries is that the money was reinvested in those industries so they could actually have growth of capacity.

There are other issues facing those particular industries, the cross-border tax being one of those things, but, as I said, it is important that they have the money to spend and reinvest in their businesses so they can grow their businesses.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-44, the budget implementation bill.

When the federal government releases its annual budget, it is far more than simply numbers on a page. It is actually a declaration of intent, a vision statement of sorts; and so it is important for us to take time to learn about what exactly the government plans to do on behalf of Canadians, or perhaps it is in hindrance of Canadians.

On March 22, the Liberal government put forward budget 2017. In this 278 page document, the Liberals outlined their plan to spend the money of taxpayers.

We all know that I am a Conservative member of Parliament in this place. I believe governments should be as small as possible. I believe business owners should be provided with freedom to innovate and create jobs, and I believe in freedom of choice and the fact that it should be protected. Naturally, I look at the budget through a different lens than my counterparts do. As the member of Parliament for Lethbridge and as a Conservative, I was thoroughly disappointed by the budget.

The bottom line is this. The Liberals are hiking taxes, stalling on infrastructure spending, and doing little to help seniors, and they have zero plans in place for helping the rising generation. I have not even mentioned the fact that the Liberals are incurring a deficit load of $28.9 billion in this budget, which is a far cry from the $10 billion that they promised during the election. This would leave future generations with the task of paying for their reckless spending.

To be fair, there are a few measures in the budget that I would like to draw upon, and of course, many of them have to do with former Conservative initiatives that are now being expanded. One would be the caregiver tax credit that rolls three different Conservative tax credits into one. The Liberals continued also with the Conservatives' trend of providing greater access and flexibility to student loans to ensure adult learners have the resources they need to access training to improve their work prospects.

The budget would also provide new flexibility to mothers on maternity leave, and different flexibility for people on employment insurance to return to school. I do believe these are excellent or noteworthy changes. Unfortunately, however, these positives were overshadowed by an entire host of negatives.

With increased taxes on public transit, Uber, beer, wine, tobacco, home heating, and gasoline, life gets a lot more expensive for Canadians with budget 2017. These new taxes would make life less affordable and disproportionately affect those with low or fixed incomes.

Let us take a closer look. Budget 2017 would eliminate the public transit tax credit, which many of my constituents have told me would have a negative impact on them. Getting rid of this tax credit disproportionately affects those with disabilities and those on a fixed income, particularly seniors.

Furthermore, the Liberals decided to increase taxes on those who offer insurance to farmers and fishing properties, thus driving up the cost of insurance for those who are farming families in my community.

Budget 2017 would also increase taxes on tourists who visit Canada on a tour package, thereby driving up the cost of visiting our great country. It is a mystery to me why we would want to do that. This would result in job losses in the tourism sector, especially in regions such as Yukon and the Maritimes, who can afford it the least.

As already mentioned, courtesy of the Liberal government, every Canadian who enjoys a glass of wine, a bottle of beer, a cigarette, or taking Uber would now pay even more.

The Liberals have justified an astronomically high deficit by saying that much of the money will go toward infrastructure projects, which are meant to boost the economy, they would argue. However, since the Liberal government took office, 94% of approved projects have not yet broken ground. This is a huge problem. This means jobs are not being created, and it means that the economy is not being stimulated in the way the Liberals promised.

Budget 2017 contains no new infrastructure spending beyond what was announced in the 2016 fall economic update. As for Lethbridge, as the member of Parliament, I was really hoping to see greater funds become available for infrastructure projects within a medium-sized centre such as ours. However, that was not the case. Instead, we were left out in the cold. Why might that be? It is because the Liberals made all the money available to Liberal-friendly big cities like Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver. There is zero new funding for small and medium cities like ours.

When it comes to helping seniors, budget 2017 is far more harmful than it is helpful. The Liberals scrapped the public transit credit, eliminated the family caregiver tax credit, and increased the cost of living by putting in place a carbon tax. To top it all off, the Prime Minister continues to refuse to put a minister for seniors in place. Right now in Canada, one in six people are seniors. They deserve more.

However, they are not the only ones. Canada's youth are put in a significant place of disadvantage with the budget. Instead of raising taxes, the Prime Minister really should have focused on job creation and policies that would lead to that. In the last year, Canadians aged 15 to 24 lost 42,000 full-time jobs. To make matters worse, the best solution the finance minister has to offer the younger generation is that they simply need to get used to what he calls “job churn”. This is absolutely unacceptable. We need to take this generation much more seriously.

Since being elected in 2015, I have had a chance to travel from coast to coast across the country, and I have talked to young people in each province as I have gone along. The biggest concern I hear over and over again is that they want to find meaningful employment after they graduate from university or college. Many youth have called upon the federal government to provide a tax incentive to employers who hire young people. Such an approach would allow the free market to reward job creation and, unlike government job programs, would result in long-term, well-paying jobs for these young people. I believe that budget 2017 was a missed opportunity to advocate for the rising generation.

Sadly, with this budget the Liberals are mortgaging the future of our great country, and it is our children who will ultimately have to foot the bill. It is extremely concerning to me that budget 2017 puts Liberals on track to spend $100 billion more than they will collect through tax revenue in the life of this government. This is like taking a $100 billion mortgage out, which our children and our grandchildren would be responsible for paying back. This is hard to justify, when our children and our grandchildren would see little to no benefit for this money.

In short, I will be voting against Bill C-44, the budget implementation bill. I cannot in good faith look my constituents in the eye and tell them that this budget is in fact in their best interest. Neither can the party opposite. The truth is that the Liberals have a spending problem. When it comes to spending my constituents' money, they cannot help themselves. They find that fun, and I am not okay with that. I am not okay with their raising taxes so they can pay their corporate cronies who come begging for government bailouts. The Liberals call it advancing innovation, but we know it is actually corporate welfare. The Liberals are taking from the poor and giving it to the rich. I believe that is absolutely, fundamentally wrong.

It is no surprise that the Prime Minister and his cabinet ministers keep getting caught holding swanky cash for access fundraisers with the business elite of Canada, or that the rich Bay Street business types and the Liberal-friendly think tanks are the ones that are benefiting from the Liberal government's policies.

Canada's economic future is looking a little uncertain. There are factors beyond our control, such as the unpredictable American government, that further advanced this uncertainty. This is why it is even more important than ever that we get our own house, our own country, in order first and foremost.

The budget points Canada into very dangerous economic waters. My job as a member of Parliament in this place is to defend the taxpayers, and this budget fails to respect their investment in this great country, the country we call Canada. Therefore, I will be voting against Bill C-44, the budget implementation bill.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as an example, when we have a bridge that requires annual maintenance and we do not do maintenance for a year, the bridge will be fine. If we do not do it for two years, it will not be doing so well. We will start to see the cracks. After a few years though, we have to rebuild the bridge. If we want to have proper infrastructure in the country, it takes that annual investment, that constant improvement in infrastructure, that constant investment.

The deficit we have in the country exists all across the country, in our physical and social infrastructure. It is everywhere. If the member does not want to have any kind of investment, that is fine. She can get up and say that. However, I believe if we want to improve our country, improve our investments in infrastructure, and prepare for the future, we have to invest. The best way to do that right now is through the deficit spending that we are doing.

I wonder if the member would like to assert her lack of desire to invest in our infrastructure.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to infrastructure, I would agree with the member. I do think it is very important that we invest in our infrastructure and that we maintain our infrastructure. In fact, that is why I believe we should start getting some shovels in the ground. Six per cent just is not cutting it. There is another 94% of projects that have been approved that have not even started. Canadians do deserve better. They do deserve their roads, their bridges, etc., to be maintained. Unfortunately, the present Liberal government seems to be incapable of getting the job done.

That said, when it comes to infrastructure spending, I think we should note that it is actually the Liberal governments of the past that have severely cut back. If we are noticing a lack, if we are noticing cracks in roads or bridges that are not holding up, I think we actually need to look opposite.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very clear and coherent speech, although we do not exactly share her political point of view. That is normal, however, and we respect that.

I wonder if she could talk a little more about the infrastructure bank that is being created. The Liberals said during the election campaign, and are still repeating today, that interest rates are low, so it is a good time to borrow to invest, and that we need new infrastructure.

Now we are suddenly learning that about 90% of the money for the infrastructure bank will come from the private sector, which will expect to make money and see a return on investment. This means more tolls and user fees. Once again, it will be Canadian taxpayers, people in my riding and in the member's riding, who will have to pay for it.

What does the member think of the Liberals' plan regarding the infrastructure bank?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the infrastructure bank, we are looking at billions of dollars, without a concrete plan attached to those dollars. When I read through the Liberals' plan, so to speak, the waters are actually quite muddied for me. I am not exactly sure what the plan entails, in terms of rolling that money out and actually getting projects done.

In terms of public-private partnerships and engaging the private sector, I think the private sector gets the job done, and it always does it at an expense that is far less to the taxpayer than if it were publicly funded and operated.

That said, I think I am waiting on the Liberals, in terms of their actually rolling this out and getting some money into the hands of developers and making sure that these infrastructure projects actually take place, and the Liberals have not shown themselves to actually have a plan to get that job done.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, the member for Lethbridge, for her great presentation on the reality of the current Liberal budget.

I have two adult children and six grandchildren. My daughter and daughter-in-law currently stay at home and care for my grandchildren. I am curious to know how this 2017 Liberal budget is going to impact my family, given what we have heard and read in the budget.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has two adult children, one of them is a stay-at-home mom. The former Conservative government brought in something called income splitting, which would actually benefit her a lot because it would mean that—ultimately, at the end of the day, without going into it, it would save them a lot of money. That measure was actually reversed by the Liberal government that is now in place. That is really unfortunate and, of course, that is detrimental to my hon. colleague's daughter.

In addition, when we are talking about almost $30 billion worth of borrowed spending just in this year alone, at the end of the day, that is getting passed on to my colleague's daughter and to her children, again, for things that they actually may not see the full benefit of. At the end of the day, it is their taxes that are going to go up and it is their health care that is going to get pulled back, and other services they depend on, because the government is going to eventually have to pay this money back.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to resuming debate, I would like to inform hon. members that we have surpassed the five-hour time after the first round of speeches on this particular motion that is before the House and so, thereafter, all speeches, interventions, on this motion will be limited to 10 minutes for a member's remarks and five minutes for questions and comments.

Resuming debate, the hon. Minister of Status of Women.

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of Status of Women]

I would like to emphasize the number five, as you just have, Mr. Speaker, later on in my presentation, but there is one thing I must say before I do.

It is a great privilege for me to be here, on traditional Algonquin territory.

What a great privilege it is for me to be on this traditional and territorial ground of the Algonquin peoples, to be the member of Parliament for the incredible riding of Peterborough—Kawartha, and to have the opportunity to serve the people of Canada as their Minister of Status of Women Canada.

I am speaking today to budget 2017, which is a budget of opportunity, and not just for the people of my riding, where we have a college and a university, where we have one of the highest percentages of seniors, who have chosen to spend their golden years in my riding, and where we have high rates of poverty and a lack of access to affordable housing.

Budget 2017 is a budget of opportunity for women and girls in Canada.

I am speaking in support of the budget, of course, and I am thankful to the Prime Minister and our Minister of Finance for introducing such a feminist budget.

In coming up with my remarks today, I thought about what numbers I ought to talk about. Do I talk about the $7 billion we would invest in budget 2017 for a national early learning and child care framework? Should I emphasize the $11 billion we would be setting aside for the first ever national housing strategy? Do I focus on the $100.9 million we would be putting forward to help implement this federal government's very first gender-based violence strategy? Do I talk about the 300,000 Canadian children who are being lifted out of poverty thanks to the Canada child benefit plan, which we introduced when we first assumed office? I thought about elaborating on all these numbers, but perhaps if there is one number I could leave members with today, it would be the number five.

The number five is an important number for several reasons. The United Nations sustainable development goal number five focuses on achieving gender equality and empowering all women and girls. It is a goal that several nations have signed onto, as has Canada, and it seeks to change the course of the 21st century by addressing key challenges, such as poverty, inequality, and gender-based violence. We know that empowering women is a precondition for reaching this goal.

This goal is an important one, because there is worldwide recognition that when we have improved outcomes for women and girls, we have improved societies, we have improved countries, and we have enhanced stability and prosperity for people around the world. This is the evidence-based context in which our government's feminist approach to governance can be understood.

This brings me to chapter 5 in budget 2017. In chapter 5, what we see is a first for the Government of Canada, a gender statement. This is the first time there has been an acknowledgement in a federal budget that the decisions we make, how we tax, how we spend, and how we focus our efforts in terms of programs, services, policies, and legislation affects people of different genders and different backgrounds differently. This gender statement allows for a meaningful and transparent discussion on gender and intersecting identities, which will help us better understand the challenges faced by different communities across this great nation and make more informed decisions to advance fairness, gender equality, and prosperity for all.

I am going to talk about three women who highlight the importance of having a gender lens.

Let me tell the House about a young immigrant woman from my riding who attended Trent University. Her name is Andressa Lacerda, and she is the executive vice-president of Noblegen Inc., one of those clean tech companies that our environment minister is so proud of that are solving real challenges globally through investments in evidence, science, and clean technology.

Andressa's company, Noblegen, received a repayable loan of $600,000 through FedDev Ontario to help the company expand its marketing activities and sell its advanced bio-products on a global scale. It is expected that this $600,000 investment is to help leverage other funds and to create 22 decent jobs in my riding of Peterborough—Kawartha.

This is in line with budget 2017's innovation and skills plan to make Canada a world-leading centre for innovation, creating good, well-paying jobs and strengthening and growing the middle class. It is why we would be funding Futurepreneur Canada with $14 million over the next two years to continue its important work of inspiring the next generation of entrepreneurs so that more of them can achieve the kind of success Andressa has.

I am going to talk about Sophia Fairweather, who I met at the UN Global Compact Network forum in Toronto this past April. Start Up By Sophia is an Edmonton-based organization that creates innovative startup products in STEM to help educate, inspire, and provide leadership to other children in STEM. That is why, in budget 2017, we have put aside $11 million to offer young people, particularly girls, the opportunity to participate in activities that build engagement in STEM fields.

Malala Yousafzai, one of the newest Canadians I know, spoke in this House not so long ago. When I think of her, I think of courage, determination, her passion, and her dedication to human rights and women's rights. Her way of elevating the voices of girls across the world is a lesson and a model for us all. Like her, our government will not be silent about violence against women and girls. That is why, in budget 2017, $100.9 million would be invested in implementing the first-ever gender-based violence strategy that would focus on prevention, support for survivors and their families, and a more responsive judicial system.

Chapter 5 in the budget is an important number, because it begins the important work we need to do to ensure that all of our decisions moving forward are considered through this gender lens so that Canada can lead the world and work with other OECD countries to continue to improve outcomes for people of all genders.

Last, I would like to speak about the Famous Five. Their statue is one of the most meaningful I have come across in the precinct, for a number of reasons. As we get ready for October, when we celebrate the Persons Case, we recognize the work of these five courageous women and their allies, who fought for personhood and for recognition that women and girls in Canada have just as much to contribute as their counterparts do. They fought for personhood, and they won, but they were also fighting for equal opportunity for all, because when Canadian women are elevated, empowered, and included, Canada as a whole prospers.

Budget 2017 reflects the highest level of political commitment to advancing socio-economic outcomes for women and girls and people of different genders in this country. Therefore, with the humility that our work is far from over, we will work together as a federal government, working with our provincial and territorial counterparts, to continue the good work of those great five women. I urge all my colleagues to review chapter 5 in great detail and to support budget 2017.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across from me talked about violence committed against women and the fact that the government was committed to seeing that reduced. She said we want “to continue to improve outcomes” in developing nations. I find this curious, because the government just supported Saudi Arabia being on the women's commission within the UN. We know that Saudi Arabia does not exactly stand for women's rights. In fact, it does not stand for human rights in general, but it is particularly violent against women.

I am wondering how the hon. member across from me can defend the government's position with respect to supporting Saudi Arabia in this effort to portray violence against women.

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would correct the member. Canada did not support this particular piece. In fact, Canada does not have a seat at that table.

That said, my hon. colleague brings up the Commission on the Status of Women. In 2013, I had the great privilege of meeting the opposition leader, who at the time was the minister of status of women, at the Commission on the Status of Women in New York City. It was the 57th gathering of this particular group of advocates, from all over the world, who were united by one common cause: ending violence against women and girls.

I received a grant through my connection with the local YWCA in my riding and attended as a young woman. I was inspired by all the ways Canada, the country of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, was leading the world.

However, I left there disheartened. I would say that it was a key moment for me in terms of entering politics. It was there that the NGOs and the labour groups in the audience would interrupt the sessions Canada was hosting with outrage and dismay, asking why launching an inquiry to find out what had happened to indigenous women and girls was not a priority for the government.

I returned this year to lead the Canadian delegation as the Minister of Status of Women. I was so proud that not only did we take action and the inquiry is on its way but that we have a feminist Prime Minister and a government with a feminist agenda. We know that the work is not done. There is much work to do, and we are committed to that work.