Debates of June 5th, 2017

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary previously talked about how the government had to move the legislation forward because there was no working relationship, and I want to correct the record. A couple of important things were achieved in the House of Commons this session, as well as one, unfortunately, that is not going to be achieved with this budget bill. In particular, the Marrakesh treaty that was passed by Parliament was done through the government asking both the Conservatives and the New Democrats to help it fast-track it through the House to allow those with visual impairments, the blind, in particular, to access printed materials and for us to join an international network to do so. I am happy to report that we did that with the government, and Canada became the 20th signatory to the treaty. We actually have some very serious achievements that we did together for this country.

Why was the same approach not applied to the autism request for $4 million? I recently toured the Windsor-Essex Therapeutic Riding Association, which is using different types of things that are not applied in the rest of the country, but those shared services would be well applied to other people. In particular, it uses horses and other types of supports to break through autism. I ask the member that question, because it is a sad and serious situation that we could not achieve that goal, especially given the work that has been done on it.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have had a number of remarkable experiences. One of them was working together with not only the Right Hon. Stephen Harper, but Jim Flaherty and Joe Oliver, as our finance ministers. I served with Jim Flaherty as a minister of state for finance. He was a finance minister who would come to the budget table and advocate on behalf of the disabled and the underprivileged. He would advocate on behalf of certain things like the Special Olympics. Certainly, together with the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, when the idea was brought forward to invest in the autism partnership, we had people who said there may be other ways of doing it, but it just seemed right to do. I will never forget those times.

On this side, I do not know if there was a reason why they did not. However, make no mistake, those types of initiatives from the Liberal government, which only believes in enlarging the size of government as an answer to everything, fail the average Canadian every time.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to resuming debate, I will let hon. members know that there seems to be a great deal of interest in participating in the questions and comments time this evening. That is understandable. I will do my best to try to signal members who are making either questions or comments or responding to them to try to confine the time to allow as many members as possible to participate in the debate.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to talk about budget 2017.

More and more Canadians are talking to me about the lofty promises made during the election campaign—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. I apologize, but I made a mistake in the speaking order of members who wish to participate in the debate.

The member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola was up next. I will invite the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot to speak after that.

The hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly can appreciate that many people probably want to hear the previous speaker more than me. I will try to do her justice as I move forward, and I will appreciate listening to her speech later.

As members know, it is always an honour to rise in this place on behalf of the constituents of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola. It is a very important debate for me and for all of us for different reasons. I will highlight one of the reasons that is very important to me.

As some members will know, I come from one of Canada's premier wine producing regions. Other members of this place represent regions that are also renowned for producing fine Canadian wine and, increasingly, craft ales, even artisan spirits. A few even have large-scale breweries that are huge employers in their home ridings. I mention these things as Canada's wine, beer, and spirit industry is an important one for many regions of our country.

There are some very serious concerns from this industry as it will be extremely impacted by some proposed measures in this bill. In short, let us call it what it is: the escalator tax. For the benefit of those watching or who may not be old enough to remember the last time an elevator tax was used, it was by the former Pierre Elliott Trudeau government.

Every year the tax rate on most wine, beer, and spirits sold in Canada will be subject an annual tax increase, linked to inflation, an annual tax increase that will not be linked to a budget that must be passed and debated in this place each year. Rather, unelected bureaucrats will hike the tax based on the consumer price index, locked in, potentially for who knows how long, all from this one budget.

Why is that a concern? Let us start with the obvious.

As parliamentarians, we should always be concerned when, in effect, we see stealth taxation, where a tax will increase every year without debate or scrutiny as it does not have to be signed off by the finance minister in each budget. It just automatically happens whether we, as parliamentarians, whose job is ultimately to scrutinize government spending, especially with taxes, and authorize it. This is a big concern.

Is this truly a precedent that the Liberal government wants to set? Where will the line be drawn? How many more stealth tax increases via an escalator tax will it sneak in?

We all know that the use of escalator taxes was halted in the 1980s by former finance minister Wilson, because it was the wrong thing to do in the economy. We heard from the spirits industry that it devastated many Canadian success stories when the government linked inflation to an annual escalator for taxes.

Now maybe some on the Liberal side of the House think this is a good idea. I do not profess to know how they can defend this escalator tax. When I did a report on this topic to my constituents last week, all were universally opposed. Even those who generally supported Liberals were clear that this would lead to a form of taxation without representation. One individual made a very interesting comment. Canada was once known as a nation of savers. These types of stealth escalator taxes attack those principles.

However there is another consideration, which is the literally hundreds of small, medium, and even large-scale business that collectively produce wine, beer, and spirits. As we know, the Department of Finance estimates this new escalator tax will suck an extra almost $500 million dollars out of the Canadian economy and send that money to Ottawa over the next five years. Of course this is all about that.

The Liberal government knows, fiscally, it is in serious trouble. Every single fiscal promise from the “modest” $10 billion a year annual deficits to a return to a balanced budget in 2019 has been broken. The finance situation is so severe the finance minister actually spiked a report from his own department claiming not until 2056 would Canada possibly return to a balance.

Seriously, try to even get the finance minister to utter the words, “balanced budget”. Not even Liberals on that side of the House, although they can try, can achieve that.

This is a blatant tax grab with absolutely zero consultation whatsoever on how an additional half a billion dollar tax grab on this industry might impact it. To many of my constituents, this is really the offensive part.

The Liberal government is happy to give a $327 million loan to help finance a carbon-burning aircraft to a company that openly stated it did not need the money. Owners of wineries, craft breweries, and distilleries get $500 million in costs downloaded to them and their customers. What impact will this have on the industry? Does the Liberal government even know? Better yet, do the Liberals care?

Many in the industry feel abandoned, and that is the problem when a government decides to pick winners and losers in the private sector. In fact, one winery owner recently commented that if only that winery had bottled a pinot supercluster, maybe it would have fared better treatment from the Liberals.

We also have one other problem. A large segment of our domestic wine, craft, and spirit market is made up of products from outside of our country. This is in large part because we lack the domestic capacity in many cases to serve our own market. The upside of this situation is that we have room to grow and expand for Canadian producers. At least we did have that opportunity until the Liberals decided to tax them out of existence.

The other challenge is that foreign producers, for a variety of reasons, could have a case now to present a trade challenge. The finance committee actually received a letter from the European Commission outlining that it had grave concerns about it and planned to challenge it in an upcoming trade challenge as some products were becoming more expensive now and, in some circumstances, in a manner that 100% Canadian-produced wine did not.

Let me be clear. Right now, the policy is that if producers make Canadian wine using 100% Canadian grown produce, which helps our farmers, they are exempt from excise. However, those who use products from outside of the country or who import from places like Chile, Spain, Italy, Germany, and the United States also have to pay excise, so they will also be on this automatic escalator, every year their prices being higher. As we know, a trade challenge can be very harmful on an industry, much as we are seeing now with softwood lumber.

That is why it is so deeply concerning to see the Liberal government implement these draconian charges with zero consultation and no thought as to how it may adversely impact an import industry that then may cause us trade grief.

I would like to make it clear that I am not trying to fearmonger. These are real concerns that can be factually verified. As the elected representative for a region that may be adversely impacted by these changes, it is my responsibility to illustrate these serious concerns here. It is my intention that all members ponder them and ask serious questions of the Liberal government.

Before I close, I would like to point out today that seven out of 10 bottled wines sold in Canada are made outside of Canada. We know we are entering some of the most unprecedented new trade opportunities. However, if the cost of doing business in Canada continues to increase through new escalator taxation, higher payroll costs, increased CPP, and more, we very well could see examples of where companies like Procter & Gamble move production into lower cost regions outside of Canadian borders. With Procter & Gamble, 500 well-paying, middle-class jobs were lost. Not even the Liberal government, using borrowed money, can afford handouts to all of them.

This is the reason business investment has declined in Canada every quarter since the Liberal government was elected. I will submit it will continue to decline if costs of doing business in Canada do not remain competitive. An escalator tax means that every year we become less competitive. We cannot afford this. That is why I remain opposed to these measures and will be supporting the amendments proposed by the member of Parliament for Louis-Saint-Laurent, with whom I have had the great pleasure of serving as his deputy finance critic.

I stand opposed for the people, not just those in Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola but for the many people who contribute to our economies right across our great country. The escalator tax will not serve the purpose. The government will see less revenue, fewer jobs, and trade challenges that will harm and decimate our industry if they are successful.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his work on the Standing Committee on Finance. It is always a pleasure to work with him.

One of the subjects that he did not talk about but may wish to do so, is that of the parliamentary budget officer. At committee, we saw the minister and his officials defending the changes that affect the parliamentary budget officer. They seemed to have a hard time defending the various clauses of Bill C-44 that amend the mandate of the parliamentary budget officer as an institution. At committee, they even had to do some stopgap adjustments and damage control, if I can use that expression. All the Liberal members had a very hard time defending the bill's contents.

I would like my colleague to comment on how Bill C-44 was drafted and how hastily it seems to have been prepared. Unfortunately, this has resulted in a bill that is poorly written and poorly put together, and that had to be corrected by the Liberals.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's contribution here and also at committee. I will simply say that I believe that the additions to the PBO were announced in the fall economic update to give the Minister of Finance a little sugar to help make the terrible deficit medicine go down a little easier.

Since then, we have seen that the Liberals were challenged by the previous parliamentary budget officer, Kevin Page, and his new institute for fiscal studies, as well as the current occupant of that position, because there were some key flaws.

I will provide a good example of the amendments. One in particular stated that any person wanting to be the next parliamentary budget officer should have significant provincial or federal experience in budgetary matters. I asked officials at committee if we could end up in a situation similar to the one we saw with the Commissioner of Official Languages, with a partisan nominee, a former Liberal minister, taking that post. Could we possibly see the same sort of thing, with a former provincial or federal minister who would have significant budgetary expertise? The officials said yes, that was certainly a possibility. Thus, even the amendments that were put forward by the government to correct these so-called issues with the PBO, I would contend, are not in our best interest, and we should actually restart the process and have a joint standing committee or a special committee of both Houses go through it, because this is Parliament's budget officer, not the government's.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned a flawed initiative in the budget bill that would create trade issues internationally. It would impair the capability for our craft brewers and wine producers to be competitive globally. However, with respect to trade, there is something that the government could have put in the budget that would not provoke any international intervention and would help Canadians enjoy these products interprovincially. I wonder if he might want to expand on this initiative that could have been in this budget, one that would have been very profitable and beneficial for those communities with craft brewers and wine producers but was not included.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate that the member has been a big fan of the “free the beer” campaign with respect to the Comeau case out of New Brunswick. We raised it here last May, in fact. I will just make this point. Last May the Conservatives were telling the government to free the beer. Now, a year later, we are saying to the government to please not tax it to death. I thought I would just bring that up.

The New Brunswick government has actually suggested and sought leave from the Supreme Court of Canada. I have said in this place that I congratulate the provincial government for that. It is a Liberal government. The Supreme Court, to my delight, has said that it will take this forward, because unfortunately the so-called Canada free trade agreement did not include an agreement on alcohol. I am not sure how we can have a free trade agreement within a free country, as that seems to be a misnomer. This is a great opportunity for the Supreme Court to answer this question and to really free the beer so that we can have true internal free trade of this fine Canadian product.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise once again in the House today to speak to budget 2017.

More and more people are telling me about the fine promises made during the election campaign and the string of disappointments and disillusionment once the party that got voted in formed government. This is what I have heard about the Liberals for over a year and a half. The 2017 budget is no different, and there are many areas where the investment is inadequate, if not inexistent.

How can this government justify to the six out of 10 unemployed workers who do not have access to employment insurance that it is not planning to invest anything in improving access? The lack of access to these benefits deprives many workers of the resources they need to survive.

The government keeps telling us that it is creating jobs, but it is unacceptable to leave people unable to support themselves without assistance. Employment insurance is paid for through employee and employer contributions and it needs to help those who need it, when they need it.

The employment insurance system needs to be changed so that those who have been left behind can access these benefits. Many workers are in several precarious jobs, which is why they are unable to access these benefits. This is especially the case for seasonal workers, and I want to remind this government once again that each year 15,000 people are in this situation, close to 40% of them in Quebec. It is also the case for young people, since 40% of the jobs worked by 18- to 34-year-olds are precarious.

How can our small businesses create good jobs when they do not have adequate infrastructure? Internet access is a fundamental issue for rural residents and businesses. However, nowhere in the budget does the government announce new investment to allow rural communities to have access to high-speed Internet.

In the riding of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, which I represent, we are among those left out of high-speed Internet. It is an impediment to our community, particularly our small businesses. I have pledged to bring fibre optic throughout the riding, and I will continue to fight for that. The government needs to invest in public infrastructure to make new technologies accessible to everyone, everywhere.

On the topic of small businesses, microbreweries and small wine producers are a vital part of our economy. Small businesses create 80% of good-paying jobs. Increasing the excise tax would impose added costs on microbreweries and small wine producers. Breweries pay to the federal government the same excise duties on each litre of beer, regardless of volume, and this is unfair to the microbreweries unable to compete with the major breweries.

The federal government should instead help microbreweries, microdistilleries, and vintners market their products. It needs to eliminate the excise tax hike on microbreweries and small wine producers.

This government has said time and again that it wants to help the hard-working middle class. Again, there is a big disconnect between what the Liberals say and what they actually do. Child care costs have gone up more than 8% over the last two years. This strong middle class that the government wants to build is paying very high child care costs, while the budget does not include one extra penny for new child care spaces this year, and the amounts to be provided later are mostly inadequate for the needs of parents.

During the election campaign, the Liberals criticized the NDP plan saying that it was too slow. Under our plan, there was more more money for the first year than the government plans to invest during the fifth year. Some families pay up to $1,600 a month per child for child care. No matter how hard you work, that is a gaping hole in the household budget.

The Liberals are also cutting the public transit tax credit that helped many people save up to $200 a year. Families expect this government to work for them, but clearly it prefers to gift $725 million annually to Canada's wealthiest CEOs. Is that what the Liberals mean by building a strong middle class?

To the long list of those who have been cheated, we must add dairy farmers. In November, the government promised to invest $350 million to help dairy farmers cope with the repercussions of the comprehensive economic trade agreement signed with the European Union, but there is not a single line item in the budget for such an investment. Like many Liberal promises, this one seems to have vanished. Many dairy farmers in the riding of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and in Quebec and Canada in fact, were expecting support from the federal government. It is high time that a government protected our farmers and truly helped them.

People do not seem to be able to count on this government when it comes to health care costs. Despite all of the requests that have been made by the provinces, the Liberals have once again chosen not to make the disability tax credit refundable. Low-income Canadians therefore have to deal with the double sentence of living with functional limitations and being trapped in a precarious situation by a government that ignores them because it would rather give tax credits to the wealthy.

There are inequalities in health when it comes to the price of prescription drugs. Canada has the second highest drug prices in the world, but the government turns a deaf ear to the suffering of those who cannot get the drugs they need. Some people do not take all of their medication and some do not take any at all because they cannot afford it. Others have to choose between health care and eating. Unfortunately, the existing system can kill, and it costs $7 billion a year more than necessary because we do not have a national pharmacare program.

This year, we celebrate Canada's 150th anniversary, and the government is constantly sending out its messages to remind us. However it should keep in mind some other figures. Nine hundred and ninety thousand is the number of children living in poverty in Canada in 2017. These 990,00 children among 4.5 million men and women in Canada living in poverty are the reality we must strive to change. People have less and less money. The household debt amounts to 167% of their revenues on average.

However, when discussing people getting poorer, I am obviously talking about the majority of them. A small minority of people, the richest in our society, keep acquiring more and more wealth. Whereas all hard-working wage earners have to pay income tax, only half of the revenues from selling shares is taxed. Just in case the government is unaware, let me remind them that selling shares is not a major source of income for the middle class and it is even less so for the most vulnerable.

The tax rate for big corporations has been constantly declining for the past 15 years, and that rate is applied only on taxable revenues. In spite of the ever-decreasing rate, big corporations still engage in tax evasion, a scourge that deprives the state of revenues worth 7 billion dollars a year.

That said, it really becomes indecent when the government itself allows the richest to evade income tax. The stock options tax break for big corporation CEOs represents a net loss of 800 million dollars a year for us. The government wants to promote hard-working men and women, but even by pushing themselves to the limit, most people cannot earn as much as a single one of the richest Canadians can earn from his shares. Owning shares that generate millions of dollars cannot be called work.

We can therefore see how negligent the government is. While it forfeits large sums of money in the form of tax credits for the wealthiest and fails to crack down on tax cheats, some people are hurting because they are poor.

Let us not forget that more than 800,000 people use food banks every month. This represents a 28% increase since 2008, and 36% of those people are children. Reforms could solve that problem, and it is high time the government took action.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her contribution to the debate on Bill C-44.

I would like to touch on one of the first points she raised about higher excise taxes for wine makers, brewers, and distillers, which will certainly have an impact, as we learned in committee. All of the witnesses were unanimous on this, and it is rare to see unanimity on any issue in committee. All the witnesses agreed. They all said it would hurt the industry, especially since inflation will continue to rise and put added pressure on the industry.

Can my colleague tell us what impact this is having in her riding? Wine makers, brewers, and distillers are all doing their best to source local products. As everyone knows, land in the riding of Saint-Hyacinth—Bagot is very fertile.

Can my colleague comment on the impact this may have on farmers who supply the raw materials for the production of beer, wine, and spirits across Canada and especially in her riding?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sherbrooke for his question.

Indeed, I am very proud to represent an agrifood technopole. Microbreweries are getting more and more of their ingredients from local producers. In my riding, I am thinking of the award-winning Bilboquet and Brasseurs du monde microbreweries.

We are seeing microbreweries pop up all over Quebec and Canada. They are everywhere you go these days. These microbreweries are important to our communities. Indeed, they are getting their ingredients from local producers and are very proud to do so.

The city of Saint-Hyacinthe is home to Barry Callebaut, a major chocolate maker. There is even a microbrewery that used chocolate shavings to make a really nice beer. The output of one company becomes the raw materials of another. When these small businesses are attacked, an entire supply chain is attacked.

The Liberal government needs to think about our regions' economies, which are important, rather than only looking after large corporations and thinking of the interests of the wealthiest among them.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for her speech.

In April, during World Autism Awareness Day, over a dozen MPs across the way had a photo op with people who supported the autism partnership.

Could the hon. member tell me why no money was allocated to the autism partnership in this budget?

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

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

As I said, this is another fine example of the government being all talk and no action. It takes more than fine speeches. There are great needs in health and the government must invest in it. A few decades ago, the federal government covered 50% of provincial health expenditures. In the most recent accord, there was talk of 20% and that percentage will only decrease because the 10-year agreement does not account for increased costs.

As we know, more and more families are grappling with problems such as autism. The population is getting older. Health care needs are great and the federal government has to be there to support families and individuals when it comes to health. I totally agree with my colleague.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here tonight to debate Bill C-44, the budget implementation act. I thought I would start my speech by laying out a little context, at least from my perspective, about how the finance minister and the industry minister have it wrong, and how some other members I have heard speak here tonight have it wrong. They talked about economic growth. They talked about their last two budgets, their plan for the economy and how it is working so well, and that they have this terrific economic growth.

One thing we would agree on is that the economy is growing. What we would disagree on is why that economy is growing. In a $2 trillion economy, the budget they have put forward and so heavily back loaded has not moved the dial at all. What has moved the dial for the Canadian economy is a strong U.S. economy, a low Canadian dollar, and strong consumer spending, basically around the housing industry, which is by and large completely financed by debt.

If we read any economic publication about economic growth, we would see no mention of the Prime Minister nor the finance minister's plan, and definitely nothing about the Liberal Party of Canada. Those are the facts. We are lucky. We all root for a good economy, but we have to be realistic about why we have strong economic growth.

The other points where I would like to lay out some context is that in spite of that strong economic growth, the numbers have been revised from where they were before. They were pegged around an annualized rate at 4.1%, which is way up from a couple of years ago, and certainly since last year, but they have been revised down to 3.7% annualized.

Other possibly troubling pieces in these economic numbers are inventories being back loaded, which they are currently, and that exports to the United States have slipped mildly. The annualized rate now, which everyone is projecting realistically to be 2.2%, not surprisingly, is behind the United States in economic growth.

Everyone in this room should know that when the U.S. economy goes well, we do well. When the U.S. economy goes bad, we do not do so well. There are 75% of our exports going to the United States, so it is no surprise. Exports to the United States were up 5.4% in April, and we will see where it goes for the rest of the year.

Another troubling fact that all parliamentarians should have, and Canadians in a broader sense should have, is that if we compare the deficits that we experienced in 2009, 2010, and 2011, for example, it was in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the great depression. With the deficits that we have and the debt we are going to be accumulating over the next four years, for sure to 2019, but if the Liberals somehow manage to get re-elected in 2019, which is looking more doubtful every day, we are trending towards 2055 for deficit and debt repayment.

My point is that the deficits we are adding today are at a time of economic growth, at a time where the economy is actually moving well in the U.S. and here. It is a little less well with the other G7 countries, but it is not too bad. If we compare that to the times of 2009, 2010, and 2011, those were terrible times. It is never a good idea to accumulate debt while times are good. It is never a good idea to accumulate debt at any time.

I am from Ontario, and we have another big problem. Her first name is Kathleen. We have some problems. We have a lot of instability with some of the policies she has put forward. Her cousin Dalton caused us a lot of trouble too. We have had 13 years of provincial Liberal government in the province of Ontario. They have accumulated more debt than all the other provincial governments combined. They might get out of deficit at some point, but they have sold the furniture to pay off the short-term financial issues. We have electricity rates that are absolutely ridiculous, that businesses cannot afford, seniors on fixed income cannot afford, and low-income Ontarians cannot afford.

The province that I live in has the same leadership, with Gerald Butts and Katie Telford guiding the Prime Minister's ship in the same direction that the Province of Ontario has been going for the last 13 years. The only thing that is saving us at this point in time is the U.S. economy. We are thankful for its strength and we are thankful that it continues to buy our products. We are also thankful that our dollar is low relative to the U.S. dollar.

The minister of industry talks at great length about his superclusters and all the other stuff he is doing, but it has not moved the needle. The three western provinces are going to show the best growth and the best strength for our Canadian economy, and that is basically led by the oil and gas sector. As much as the Liberal government considers the words “oil” and “gas” as two dirty words that they do not like to use, the reality is that our economy is still successful with the sector, and as we heard from many of our colleagues, it is the most ethically produced oil and gas in the world.

Other members have talked about companies like Procter & Gamble that have announced it is going to be leaving Ontario. That is 500 good-paying jobs in a small city of 30,000. That is a devastating blow at a time when the U.S. is going to reduce taxes, is cutting regulations, and has a number of infrastructure announcements coming out this week that will lay the foundation for its growth.

Contrast that to what we are doing here in Canada where we are adding taxes. We heard about the excise tax. The government is adding other levies and fees. We are revisiting the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. We heard the Minister of Transport talking today about the navigable waters act. These are all things that will slow our progress, slow our growth. If the Liberals are in government long enough, we will once again be doing environmental assessments on cedar benches in national parks, which is what we were doing before we made those changes.

This has been brought up already, but if I heard it once in the last election, I must have heard it 500 times. I am talking about how the Liberals said they would never do omnibus bills. They said, “Not us, if we ever get in.” Bill C-44 that we are looking at tonight is as prolific as any omnibus bill before it. I am sure that if a student in political science anywhere across this country wanted to have a good look at what an omnibus bill is, that student need look no further than this piece of legislation.

The government House leader has said that everything in this legislation is about money. I guess at the end of the day, everything is about money, but that is not what the Liberals were talking about in the last election.

Another topic we have heard a lot about in the House of Commons, and which is a continuation of the anti-rural policies that the Liberals have, is the investment bank. The overall arching sweep of infrastructure money is $181 billion over the next 11 years. The slap in the face to rural Canadians, which I am one of, is that only $2 billion over 11 years is specifically allocated to rural Canada. It is pretty much a given that not $1 in the $35-billion infrastructure bank will go to rural Canadian towns and municipalities.

Canadians should also be concerned about the wording with respect to the infrastructure bank. I apologize if someone else has brought this up today, but it is that the investments may be made in Canada or “partly in Canada”. This basically means that our Canadian tax dollars, which should be going into building infrastructure in this country, can go toward building infrastructure in China, India, and many other places. That is not what Canadians view as an infrastructure bank when they are talking about it.

In addition, other parts in the briefing that was presented are with regard to a significant portion of the risk. The bank could take on debt that allows other debtors to be paid first in order to provide a loss buffer. Those are not words that Canadian taxpayers want to hear, and they are not words we want to hear, especially when Liberal cabinet members are the ones who will be picking the projects.

I have many more pages to go over here, so hopefully the Liberals will ask questions that pertain to what I have in the rest of my speech.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to focus on another aspect of the bill that seeks to increase fees for Canadians, and that is the service fees act, which would replace a similar law.

The service fees that the Government of Canada charges Canadians for a wide variety of services will increase with inflation for an indefinite period. In committee, witnesses were saying that there are fees associated with over 1,000 services, including immigration and passport services, and Parks Canada services.

Could my colleague comment on that aspect of the bill? He already mentioned a number of hikes in taxes and fees, but in this case, the service fees act is a new way of increasing fees every year for an indefinite period, based on the consumer price index.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is coming right out of the Gerald Butts-Katie Telford playbook. They nickel-and-dime us to death. We have seen that in Ontario. Now we are going to see it here.

With respect to passports, low-income Canadians would love to have passports. Maybe they could go on a little trip. Especially where I am from, we can go over to Port Huron or into Ohio for a little visit if we like. If passport fees are going to go up, it sure would add a lot for a fixed-income person, especially a fixed-income senior.

Another one I would like to talk about is the agriculture and agrifood food side. Agriculture and agrifood is the biggest driver in the province of Ontario. The CFIA makes it difficult enough for small butcher shops, abattoirs, feed mills, and other things to stay open. We should be looking to decrease, not increase, fees. It is the same thing other members have talked about with excise taxes. It is so bizarre to hear the finance minister stand in the House of Commons and say that we need to continue to raise taxes so businesses understand, or whatever he said today in question period. I cannot believe it. It should be reducing taxes.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for an excellent speech, because he puts it into perspective for everyday ordinary Canadians.

I would like to ask him about competitiveness. He talked about the agrifood business. I come from Oshawa, where it is manufacturing. What is in this budget to help us be more competitive? He talked about the Ontario government. We have the highest electrical rates in North America for industry. We have the government putting in a carbon tax, and not only at the provincial level. If it is not big enough, it is going to make it even bigger. The new administration in the United States is actually working on lowering taxes and lowering red tape, and in Canada, the government is doing everything to raise taxes and raise red tape.

Would he talk about the importance of what should be in this budget to help Canadian competitiveness?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, it should be certainty and common sense. The finance minister and the Prime Minister are definitely lacking in both areas.

We need to reduce taxes. We need to continue on the path our government had for 10 years and reduce regulations so that businesses can compete in North America against Mexico and the United States, which the Prime Minister is making more difficult to do each and every day, and around the world. Every time the finance minister starts to talk, it is, “How can I pick your pocket once? How can I pick your pocket twice?” The very last thing is, “I am going to raise your taxes.”

It is tough, because it affects businesses. It affects fixed-income seniors across the board. We only need to go into my area, or other members' areas, and ask people what they think, and they will tell us pretty quick. They will tell us what they think about Kathleen Wynne and they will tell us about the Prime Minister. We did not hear that two years ago. We did not hear that prior to October 2015. We did not hear that 18 months ago, 16 months ago, but now when we go home on the weekend or we are there on a break week, what we hear is, “I cannot believe what these guys are doing to us in Ottawa. What can we do?” That is two years with Liberals.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-44, budget implementation act, 2017, No. 1.

We have heard from many members in this House about the numerous issues with the bill. When we have a bill that is over 300 pages long and amends 30 pieces of legislation, we really need to have a substantial amount of debate on these issues.

Unfortunately, the Liberals have been intent on ramming through this legislation without proper consultation and the discussion it deserves. There have been only four days of debate on Bill C-44 at second reading. There have been only six meetings of the finance committee on this legislation and just under two hours of consideration at the Standing Committee on Transport and Infrastructure. Now here we are at report stage, one of the final stages of the bill that amends 30 pieces of legislation, and the Liberals have moved time allocation again. This is simply not enough time to do our due diligence when it comes to making sure that we are passing the best piece of legislation we can.

I want to speak to one part of Bill C-44 in particular that really highlights the need for discussion and debate, and that is division 18, which creates the infrastructure bank of Canada act.

As the official opposition critic for infrastructure and communities, I have been following the Liberal process of creating their infrastructure bank since November 2015. I have raised concerns about the design of the bank, the need for the bank, the functions of the bank, and who will be benefiting from the bank. While Bill C-44 offers new details about the structure and the financing of the bank, it also introduces a multitude of new questions. I was looking forward to really beginning to drill down into this piece of legislation to make sure that the $35 billion of taxpayers' money spent to finance this bank would be spent in a way that would ensure that Canadians and communities were getting the critical pieces of infrastructure they need.

Unfortunately, the Liberals allowed only two hours of study of this legislation at the Standing Committee on Transport and Infrastructure. I know that when they were questioned by the media as to why there was so little time given to members to study such an important piece of legislation, the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities told the media that the committee could hold more meetings if it chose to and that the minister and the PMO were not involved in telling the committee what to do.

A motion was put forward at the transport committee to add two more meetings on this legislation and to bring in more expert witnesses who could speak to the development of the legislation and its impact on the future of Canadian infrastructure and communities. The Liberal MPs voted that motion down and blocked any further study of this legislation. The committee discussed a $35-billion bank in under two hours. That is 3.42 minutes per billion dollars. We called for this section of Bill C-44 to be separated from the rest of the bill to allow the House more time to debate it, and of course, the Liberals voted that down as well.

The Senate is now considering separating the legislation from the rest of the bill, because it too recognizes that this bank will have a significant impact on Canadians and has serious issues that really do need to be addressed. As Bill C-44 comes before the Senate, I really hope that the upper chamber will do what this House refuses to do, and that is to separate the legislation for the infrastructure bank so we can give it the proper study and discussion it deserves.

I also want to highlight some of the issues surrounding the bank. The Liberal infrastructure bank will use $35 billion of taxpayers' money to underwrite loans and provide loan guarantees to private and foreign investors.

These investors are looking for significant returns. J.P. Morgan put out a list, and depending on the project, it ranges anywhere from a 7% to 20% return on the investment. That means that investment will only occur for large, lucrative projects. Few municipalities in Canada will have their projects built through this bank.

Another troubling aspect of this legislation is that executives from BlackRock, the world's largest investment firm, were invited to be directly involved in the development of the legislation and to preview the minister's speech before the bank was pitched to their clients. That is a blatant conflict of interest.

This legislation gives the Liberals the power to provide loan guarantees to investors. We already have PPP Canada, which has been in operation since 2009. This crown corporation was specifically designed to leverage private sector dollars to build infrastructure. From the initial investment of $1.3 billion, it has leveraged over $6 billion in infrastructure in an open, transparent, ethical, and effective way.

If the Liberals had actually put the $35 billion into PPP Canada and expanded its mandate, PPP Canada could have leveraged $170 billion in infrastructure. In fact, in the KPMG report, which was commissioned by the Liberals, it advised them on setting up the infrastructure bank. It stated that putting the bank under an existing agency, like PPP Canada, would have been cheaper, more efficient, and less bureaucratic than setting up a whole new crown corporation. However, the Liberals ignored that expert advice and decided to set up a new institution that has significant conflict of interest issues surrounding it.

Furthermore, pension plan investors, the very same ones the Liberals claim are supportive of this bank and will benefit from this bank, are also raising concerns. The Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan board told the Senate banking committee last month, on May 18, that their biggest concern with this bank is that they do not know who they should be negotiating with. Are they negotiating with the bank or are they negotiating with cabinet?

The minister and cabinet underwrite the loans, appoint the board of directors, and approve the CEO. They can fire these people without cause, and according to the Minister of Finance, will have the final say over which projects get built and which do not.

We simply need to have more time to debate these issues. Canadians have questions for this Liberal government about this bank and its relevance, about how the legislation was written and by whom, and about who will truly benefit. It is obvious that the Liberals do not want these questions to be answered, because they have rammed this legislation through the House and committee with minimal debate, and today they have just moved time allocation to shut down third reading debate as well.

This legislation has not been passed yet, and the Liberals are already advertising job postings for the CEO and board members. I truly urge my colleagues to stop and think, because we need to be putting Canadians first and making sure that our communities are getting the infrastructure they need, not focusing on making sure that private investors are getting their 20% returns at the expense of Canadian taxpayers.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, it was pleasure formerly sitting on the transportation and infrastructure committee with the member. There was a massive agenda in that committee.

I can remember in a previous incarnation, I think it was when I was on the OGGO committee, that we looked at and analyzed P3. One of the big issues with P3 was the lack of transparency. There were a lot of concerns about P3. However, the government decided to go with that. One of the big issues was to make sure we were getting a proper benefit and so forth.

I am wondering if the member could elaborate a little more on P3 versus this infrastructure bank. I was no fan of P3. I know, frankly, that there are some members of this House from my city who were opposed to P3s when they were city councillors, but it was foisted on them by the previous Conservative government to get money for LRT.

Is the member of the view, within her party, that they are beginning to rethink these mechanisms and that perhaps we need greater accountability for the spending of taxpayers' dollars?

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that question, because there is a significant difference between P3 Canada and the infrastructure bank. P3 Canada never did any underwriting of loans. In this case, $20 billion is going to reduce the risk on the private sector and give them a return on their investment and underwrite the loan. That is a significant difference.

With P3 Canada, it was a partnership between the private sector and different levels of government that came together. They were not underwriting the loans and they were not giving a return on the investment. It was a partnership, and therein lies the difference. What it did was leverage private sector dollars, which the Liberal government purports is a new-found mechanism for the bank, but it has been there since 2009. We were just not putting taxpayers at risk in terms of underwriting loans.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, with the wildly successful Building Canada program that the former Conservative government had in place, we had a very low rate of interest as government to provide collateral for infrastructure building. Roads were built, bridges were built, community centres were built, all on the basis of interest rates that were just above zero.

I would like to know whether the member could compare and contrast how it was with Building Canada versus what will be expected, especially of new municipalities, in having to deal through an infrastructure bank instead of through the provincial-federal secretariat as we used to have to do.

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

Madam Speaker, that question is relevant, because small communities will not be able to access money from the infrastructure bank. It is plain and simple. The rates of return are based on projects over $100 million. When the Building Canada fund was there and when we indexed the gas tax, it went directly to communities. There were many different mechanisms that went to small and rural communities and also went to larger communities, and 94% of all of the projects announced from the Conservatives were built. That is 94% as opposed to $1 billion from the 2016 budget that the current government has allowed to lapse, and it will not be reintroduced until 2022. That is $1 billion taken right off the top.

When we look at the number of announcements, we see that the minister is so proud that he has made more announcements than any other government in history. Yes, he has. He has announced them all, but they are not getting built. Some 94% are not under construction. Those that are under construction are the projects that we implemented through the Building Canada program.