Debates of June 5th, 2017

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Sherbrooke for that good question.

We are both members of the Standing Committee on Finance. He knows that I have a hard time with how much money judges make. They are not even part of the 1%. They are part of the 0.5% of highest earners.

Governments have long held a policy of negotiating with judges directly so that they may maintain their independence. The problem is that judges have become a class of their own in our society. They have even become more important than Parliament itself. That is one of the problems we have with judges.

I really do not agree with how much judges earn. Their annual salary is between $340,000 and $430,000. One of the reasons cited is that we must not have corrupt judges, but judges who are above reproach. Think about the message that sends about judges' involvement in our society.

I might get in trouble later for taking such a position, but it is in the budget because it is part of the budgetary measures. In the meantime, I believe that Parliament should have the courage to level more criticism at the judiciary and the salaries of judges, as they are an integral part of our society. They should understand what is happening and how the rest of the population lives with a more average salary.

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

Madam Speaker, once again, we have a government shutting down debate in Parliament to adopt an omnibus bill. I do not know why I have a sense of déjà vu.

I am sorry for starting with a movie reference. I lament the fact that, after about 100 closure motions by the Harper government, the Liberals wrapped themselves in virtue, democracy, and respect for the opposition and swore, with hands over hearts, that they would never use time allocation to ram omnibus bills through.

Guess what? As is almost always the case when the Liberals promise something hands over hearts, their good old habits resurfaced, and it is their way or the highway. I want to take a minute to state, on behalf of every constituent in Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, that we are sick and tired of these gag orders that prevent us from doing our jobs. As the member for Sherbrooke just explained a few minutes ago, this bill bundles together measures that have very little to do with one another.

I will talk about some of these measures during the precious few minutes that the Liberal government was gracious enough to grant us to discuss its budget implementation bill. This bill amends the Citizenship Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, it makes changes to judicial appointments, labour laws, food security, and the parliamentary budget officer position, and it creates an infrastructure privatization bank. All of that is thrown together under the grandiose title of “The Budget”. Come on, let us be serious.

It is a budget that is rather lean when it comes to real action that can help people here and now. The government made some big announcements and threw around impressive numbers, but if we dig a little deeper, what we find is fascinating. In reality, the majority of the investments announced by the Liberal government will be made after the 2019 election or, better yet, the 2023 election. I can only assume that the Liberals think they will be in power for a long, long time. Making promises for eight or 10 years down the road is easy. There could be two different governments in that time span.

One of the best examples of that is the Liberals' boasting about affordable and social housing. They announced $11 billion over 11 years. One of my sons is in first grade, learning about addition and subtraction. Next year, he will learn about division. If I were to ask him next year how much $11 billion over 11 years is per year, I think he will tell me that it is $1 billion per year. I am sure he will have the correct answer. Well, that is actually not what is going to happen, because everything is pushed back. During seven fiscal years, only $10 million of the announced $11 billion will be invested, less than 0.1% of what the Liberal government announced. That is not even enough to pay off the interest on that promise.

It is easy to throw around figures like that when you do not intend to keep that promise. I think that people who are in the real estate industry will realize that with $10 million, once four small low-income housing projects have been built, that is pretty much it for the entire country. What concerns me tremendously is that the budget implementation bill includes the creation of the infrastructure investment bank—or the infrastructure privatization bank—in which the federal government will put $15 billion at the start. The hope is that the private sector will bring in four or five times that amount to get to $120, $140, or $150 billion.

Nobody knows how the bank will work. Will private investors put money in the bank as in a common pot, and then the bank decides which projects get the financing? Will they invest in specific projects, like a bridge—but not every bridge—a highway, an arena, or a swimming pool? Why would private investors choose one project over another? Because they would choose the most profitable one, the one that would bring in the most money in the medium or the long term. That is every investor's dream. For 25 or 30 years, the bank will ensure returns of 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%, or 12% per year. Otherwise, why would private investors put money in that bank? It means that users will become paying users. There is no other way to profit from an airport, a seaport, or a highway than making the users pay. Profit does not grow on trees.

I will quote a high-ranking Australian officer who has seen and experienced the problems caused by privatizing infrastructure. This is from a very interesting article published by the British newspaper The Guardian:

The head of the competition regulator and a former advocate of privatisation has called for the privatisation of public monopolies to stop because the government is mishandling them.

Rod Sims, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission chairman, says he has become so exasperated by the way in which governments are privatising public assets that they need an “uppercut”.

He says governments have repeatedly botched the sale of airports, electricity infrastructure and major ports--making things worse for consumers--because, when selling the assets, they have been motivated by maximising profits rather than making efficiency gains.

He says governments have created private monopolies without sufficient regulation to stop those monopolies overcharging users--and the public knows it and has a right to be angry....When he was speaking to the audience in the Melbourne Economic Forum, he said at one stage “let’s just stop the privatisations”.

“It is increasing prices--let’s call it out,” he said.

I think that is exactly what is likely to happen to taxpayers in Quebec and Canada in the coming years if the Liberal Party goes ahead with its crazy plan, which is a gift for its Bay Street friends.

There was nothing about this in the Liberals' campaign platform. The Liberals said it was a good time to invest in infrastructure because interest rates were low. They were right. Governments can borrow money at lower rates than anyone else because their annual revenue is more stable than anyone else's. That is what they told us. What they did not tell us, however, is that they would get their Bay Street friends in on the investment act and guarantee them certain returns, certain profits at the expense of the people who are going to use the infrastructure. That is the part they did not mention. That was the nasty surprise we got when the Liberals took over. As everyone knows, it was not the only one.

The trick to how the infrastructure investment bank works is kind of like how PPPs work. When a government borrows money at low interest rates, that is good for the people, but it shows up on the books and counts as an official debt. However, if the government signs a deal with a private investor to manage a project for 25 or 30 years, it is like we are renting the infrastructure from that private investor. The magic of it is that the debt no longer shows up on the books and the financial statements. The Liberals are waving their magic want to make us believe that they will not increase the deficit.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, there were so many inaccuracies in that presentation, I do not know which question to ask or which part of NDP history the New Democrat members wish to ignore in formulating their perspective.

The fact is that the infrastructure bank was mentioned on page 48 in the campaign platform. It was there to be read, and it is still there online, if the member wants to look it up. I will not ask questions about why the members do not read the platform before they criticize it.

I will ask about the NDP's lack of understanding of how the housing budget is put together. As a party, the NDP does not seem to understand that the money for this year was in the 2016 budget. We doubled the money for housing from a base of about $2.2 billion to $4.8 billion. Those dollars are flowing into projects right now. It is why I was in Thunder Bay, opening up projects. It is why I will be in Kitchener, Waterloo, and city after city that are finally building housing again.

Did the member not read the budget last year? Does he fail to understand that the base has gone from $2.2 billion to $4.8 billion and that when we add the $11.2 billion over the next 11 years and the $10.9 billion in loans, the actual expenditure in housing for this year is twice what it was when we took over and will be twice that again afterwards? We are putting a national housing strategy in place, the likes of which the country has never seen. Why will the NDP not support that?

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

Madam Speaker, if I were my hon. colleague, I would not be so quick to mention the Liberal Party website, since it still says that the 2015 election will be the last under first past the post. I am not sure that people can really believe what they read there.

I would like to point out to my hon. colleague that, in committee, we proposed an amendment to Bill C-44 using the exact words found in the Liberal Party's election platform but that the Liberal members of the Standing Committee on Finance refused to add their party's own words to the bill. That is a prime example of Liberal consistency.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, it was interesting to hear the Liberal speaker, in his ever snarky manner, refer to what was in the budget and what was not in the budget.

I will tell the House what was not in the budget: $3.8 million a year for Canadians living with autism. In a budget that is now in the $50 billion range, in terms of deficit over two years, the government could not find a dime per Canadian.

The member for Winnipeg North, during the debate on the Canadian autism partnership, had some interesting words. He said:

Opposition members have already made their decision, and that decision is supported by the New Democrats, and that is good for them. We know the fine work the Canadian Autism Partnership Project has done in the past. We recognize that. I have visited the website, as I am sure most members have. The organization has done a phenomenal job in consultations...

He had all that to say just before he voted against it.

I will thank the hon. member for supporting Canadians living with autism, along with Conservatives, fellow New Democrats, and the Green Party. Why were the Liberal members were whipped to vote against it?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for fighting for all of these years for people with autism and their families.

It is completely shameful that the Liberal whip used his authority to block a pan-Canadian strategy that would have been so useful for so many families. It would not have even cost very much for a society that is a member of the G7 and that claims to leave no one behind. Parliament did not keep its word or respect that value in this case.

By way of comparison, during the election campaign, the Liberals promised to eliminate the tax loophole associated with stock options for CEOs, which allows $800 million a year to be given directly to CEOs of the largest Canadian companies. With that money, the government could have given families who are dealing with autism the $3.8 million they are calling for a number of times over. We see where the Liberal government's priorities lie.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my friends and colleagues in the House. I did note more applause on this side of the House than from some of my friends on the government side. I know they have missed me, because they have told me that in private. It is good to be back here.

I still see a government relishing patting itself on the back. That is after almost two years of a stunning display of broken promises, so much so that it reminds me of a quote attributed to Churchill. It has been used so many times that it has become part of his canon of quotations. It reminds me of how the Liberals define success. They define success as going from failure to failure without a loss of enthusiasm.

Whether it is broken promises to veterans, to taxpayers, to exporters or to our farmers, they are seeing a litany of broken promises that have really hit small businesses particularly badly. Seniors and families are tight with a dollar. I have met many of them in the last number of months across the country. They are already feeling the higher tax burden with the carbon tax schemes being implemented across the country.

We are debating a budget and budget implementation. As my colleague from the NDP so rightly commented, the irony of this debate was not lost on me. I want to thank my Jaimie's intern, for helping me prepare some remarks today. I want to anoint a certain member of the House, someone I will call the high commissioner of hubris. We see him regularly. He is a nice guy. He is a friend to us all. He talks a lot in the House. I am going to pull back a few nuggets from his speeches in the past to just show the hubris of the government after less than two years.

Why am I doing this? It is because today the Liberals brought in a time allocation motion, closure, on the debate with respect to budget implementation. Let me point out what someone said a number of years ago in the House on this time allocation practice. He said, “Never before have I ever experienced a government that is so persistent in using time allocation, a form of closure, using it as frequently as [it does].” He went on to say:

Why has the Government House Leader not recognized the value of sitting down with opposition House leaders and trying to work through House business in a fashion in which the government would not be so dependent on having to bring in time allocation on virtually every piece of legislation?

Who said that? The member for Winnipeg North, who is now the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. Does he forget those comments from a few years ago, where he decried this practice?

What is ironic is this is the least ambitious government in the history of Canada. After only two years, the Liberals have only received royal assent on 19 bills. How many times have they introduced motions for time allocation? It has been 23 times. They have used closure, or tried to, more than they have passed legislation through the Parliament of Canada, yet in the last Parliament, the member from Winnipeg North would howl at the moon if it was used. The Liberals are using closure more than they are passing bills. That is why I have anointed him today the high commissioner of hubris.

Let us hear a little more of that hubris. What is the budget implementation bill? It is an omnibus bill, the dreaded omnibus bills that the Liberals would go around the country saying that the last government was using to destroy democracy as we knew it. What did the member for Winnipeg North say about this type of omnibus bill? He called it “an assault on democracy”. He went on to say, “It is an assault on the House of Commons, the manner in which the majority... government has brought forward budget legislation.”

For the member of Winnipeg North, the high commissioner of hubris, I do feel assaulted. The irony is clear. The last budget implementation bill of the Conservative government was 172 draconian pages, to use the types of words the member would use.

What is this budget implementation bill? It is 308 pages affecting 30 acts of Parliament. Where is the outrage? Where is the indignation from the high commissioner of hubris? I do not see it. In fact, he is directing this right now in this House. He is in charge of the record use of time allocation and omnibus bills that are approaching the sky in length.

I would note that there is a certain irony that the Prime Minister said, just a few months ago, in response to talking about reforming and making this place better, because when he does come, he answers a lot of questions, “I hope that future prime ministers will not make excessive use of omnibus bills and will not resort to prorogation to avoid problematic situations.”

The member for Winnipeg North should tell his Prime Minister that they have used closure motions more times than they have passed bills through this House of Commons. It is almost a ridiculous record of failure. In some ways, as a Conservative, I am glad the Liberals are so lacking in ambition, because they would be doing more damage if they had more than 19 bills receiving royal assent.

Why are we here? I have to also comment on the member for Kelowna—Lake Country. He said earlier in this House, and then recited a bunch of things going back to Mackenzie King, “We are proceeding exactly the way we said we would.” He talked about being a Conservative and all that stuff.

What did the Liberal platform say with respect to budgeting? I am going to remind the member for Kelowna—Lake Country that it said:

With the Liberal plan, the federal government will have a modest short-term deficit of less than $10 billion in each of the next two fiscal years.... After the next two fiscal years, the deficit will decline and our...plan will return Canada to a balanced budget in 2019/20.

Someone should ask the member for Kelowna—Lake Country if $28.5 billion is more than $10 billion, because he broke his promise to the voters of his riding. The record cuts to the Department of National Defence under his watch are also a broken promise, so he is proceeding exactly how he said he would, I guess.

I said several times across this country that it saddens me profoundly that the finance minister's own department projects that the Liberals will not return to balance until 2055. As I often said as I was travelling across this country, my daughter Mollie, who is 10 years old, will be older than I am by the time the Liberals' plan can get to balance. That is a failure for a generation of Canadians, at a time when the global economy is not in massive recession, as it was in 2008-09. There is not a need for stimulus and growing every part of government, yet the reckless spending means future taxes for our children and more taxes in the future for small business.

They have to look at this astounding record. I do not know how a single government member could defend this in his or her riding. The Liberals have raised taxes on families. They have raised taxes on small business. They brought in a nationalized carbon tax. They brought in a payroll tax on CPP reform, yet the benefits of the reform would help fewer than 5% of Canadians. They brought in an excise tax on ride sharing in this bill. The Liberals are taxing sharing. That is what they have resorted to. They will tax our beer, they will tax our wine, they will tax our income, and now they will tax us if we are going to share. A government budget entitled, “the innovation budget” is taxing and hindering the sharing, innovation economy. The irony is stunning.

The final thing is the infrastructure bank and the so-called invest in Canada department. The Liberals would spend over $200 million on a department that is already done by the Canadian Trade Commissioner. Our new commissioner is an excellent Canadian and outstanding at her job. Global Affairs does that. Finance Canada does that. The government is already encouraging investment in Canada. We do not need an office tower and $200 million. The infrastructure bank we do not need either. We do not need Ottawa to build up another department of bureaucrats and more Liberal appointees to build infrastructure, Canadians' pension plans, and banks. We are doing it already.

I hope one of my questions will come from the high commissioner of hubris, the member for Winnipeg North.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I sat here listening to the opposition benches begging for the member for Winnipeg North to stop talking. I am a little surprised now that they want him to continue.

I was most curious about the notion that this is an omnibus bill. This is not an omnibus bill. The previous Conservative budget, which was 640 pages, and the one before that, which was closer to 750, had measures that were not even discussed in the budget documents and had amendments that were as far afield as selling embassies and cancelling the long form census. There were issues just stuffed in there, as if the ministers were instructed to find notes on their desks and stuff them into an omnibus bill and try to pass the legislation, regardless of whether there was a monetary impact.

Regarding the promise we made not to abuse omnibus legislation, all of us understand that budget bills contain all the measures in the budget and therefore are complex and often touch 30 measures.

The member likes to quote Churchill, but I will quote Stephen Harper. He said they would not present a budget that was not balanced. That is what he said. Every one of their budgets would be balanced, yet they failed to do that. They did not wait for the recession. They did it on day one. When the recession came, they really did it, and they never stopped.

Why did the Conservatives not ever balance a budget? What advice would they give us that we would possibly listen to?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was, sadly, a feeble attempt by the member for Spadina—Fort York to defend the high commissioner of hubris, the member for Winnipeg North, because he called what is happening today an assault on democracy. They would change 30 acts of Parliament through this one bill, which is more than twice the size of the first budget implementation act he would have witnessed as a brand new member of Parliament after his by-election win. How can he possibly stand in the House and suggest that this is not an omnibus bill? I always thought he was the one that might not drink the Kool-Aid. I think he is making it now. He could very well replace the member for Winnipeg North and be the adjunct high commissioner of hubris.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns I have with regard to the process through which the bill has been introduced, and I would like the member to comment, is the lack of due diligence on the legislation. To be fair, his government did use this process, and we had a number of legislative measures that eventually ended up in the courts, because they did not go through the parliamentary process and inclusion.

This current bill has a lot of those weaknesses, so I would ask the member to comment on that and on perhaps what he thinks is going to happen to much of the legislation that has skirted proper legislative review, inclusion, and purposing.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I highlighted in my remarks, what is astonishing about the sunny ways government that was going to do everything differently is that it has used closure on more occasions in the chamber than it has actually been able to produce bills in Parliament. It is astounding.

The due diligence the member is talking about is also not taking place. The government said that parliamentary secretaries would not sit on committees and committees would be free to operate, and we have seen how it has used the committees to stifle debate.

We have seen how some of its members will show up at a World Autism Day event to support the great work done by many on this issue, our friend from Edmonton, in particular, and then they are whipped to not support that same measure. I am talking about a measure, and I think the member for Windsor West would agree, that cost $3 million. This is at a time when the Liberals are running an almost $30-billion deficit virtually creating new departments in Ottawa, yet it is whipping the vote to do that.

It is the same government that whipped the vote for another great piece of legislation, from another MP from Edmonton, on a national registry for organ donations. It is whipping their votes in the chamber far more than any government I have ever seen or read about, but it masquerades it in nice socks and slogans. Canadians will soon learn the truth, because it is now starting to impact their pocketbooks and jobs, such as with Procter & Gamble, in Brockville, moving to the U.S. The sunny ways sunburn is already setting in.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I would remind all hon. members that in the course of their remarks, when they refer to other hon. members in the House, they should use their titles and/or ridings, not commissioners and some such things that are not actual titles. I know that there was no ill intent in the use of such words, but sometimes it tips into other similar situations, and then we get closer to disorder, and the House does not want that.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to attempt to get through this speech with a bit of water and a candy, because I exercised my voice at the door over the weekend, among other things. Hopefully I will be able to speak for the full 10 minutes. There is a lot to be said, especially following the member for Durham. Where does one begin?

One thing I find most interesting about the member across the way is that he distorts reality and is maybe a little offside in terms of the truth. I would suggest that he is very selective with his quotes. Some of the member's quotes were right in reference to me, and I would suggest that he has missed a good portion of what I said.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not want to interrupt my hon. colleague, because I know he does not get enough chances to speak in the House, but he suggested that I was lying in his remarks, and I would like him to clarify the record. Some of the remarks, which in jest I was having fun with him on, were quotes from his previous appearances in Hansard. On a personal point of order, I and my intern spent time researching those quotes, and I want to make sure he is not suggesting that I was lying in my speech.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I appreciate the intervention by the hon. member for Durham. I was listening and did not hear a particular reference to unparliamentary language. It is certainly in order that members can question the veracity and/or intent and difficult interpretations members take from what other members have said, but unless they are specific to actually saying a member lied or, for example, deliberately misled the House, it is not unparliamentary language. I did not hear that. I will stay attentive to that.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would not want to offend my friend across the aisle, but when I talk about select activity, what the member does not tell us is that if his interns read a little more, they would find that even when Stephen Harper brought in time allocation, I often made reference to irresponsible opposition. It does not take much. Give me 11 rookie members of Parliament, and I can virtually force any government to bring in time allocation. Back then, we often had an irresponsible official opposition.

When I stood in my place and talked about the need for time allocation, I often made reference to the fact that time allocation was an important tool. At the end of the day, we need to recognize that in order to get a government agenda through, at times we need to use it.

There has been a genuine effort by this government to work with opposition parties. It was the opposition, for example, that chose to have seven days of debate on a privilege issue because two members had a difficult time getting on to the bus and there were some questions raised. It was the official opposition that made that a high priority. It was the official opposition that attempted, for the first time in the history of Canada, to put off the debate on the budget. We remember the day that it was introduced. Whether it was the financial markets in Canada, and many others, thousands of different stakeholders waiting for the official budget, the Conservatives chose to play a game at that time and attempted to throw off the budget.

We have seen members of the Conservative Party stand up and move that another member of the Conservative Party be heard. It was a fight between Conservatives as to who should speak in the Conservative spot. There are all sorts of dilatory motions and games. I must say, the Conservatives are very good in opposition, and we hope to keep them there for many years.

Having said that, we are in June, and in June we will often have extended hours. We in the Liberal caucus are not fearful of putting in overtime. Only the Conservatives and the NDP seem to have a problem putting in overtime, which is what other governments have done. In fact, this motion enabling us to put in the time we are putting in tonight was brought in by Stephen Harper. Other levels of government have done the same thing. June is usually a very productive month. We, on this side of the House, want to see MPs working hard inside the House to get through a very proactive, aggressive, legislative, and budgetary motion.

When we hear so much about the budget and the budget implementation, that is the reason there is not enough time. I do not know if my voice would survive for me to articulate the terms of what this government has been able to accomplish in 18 months. We have done more in terms of propelling the Canadian economy and getting Canadians engaged in a very real and tangible way in every region of our country through budget measures, and in good part because of legislative changes we have made. However, there is a lot more that we want to do.

That is the reason that at times we have time allocation. If opposition does not want to co-operate, it does not leave us very much choice. If we leave it to the opposition on every bill, we would not be able to pass any bill unless the opposition were prepared to assist. They are not prepared to assist. Therefore, it is somewhat important when the member for Durham says, “Yes, I used to say, and still abide by it today, that Stephen Harper did use time allocation in record numbers, but I also said, in good part it was because you had an irresponsible official opposition.”

Ask me two weeks from now whether I believe the official opposition today is as irresponsible as the former official opposition. I hope not.

It is in the best interest of Canadians to allow the government, in consultation with and going through the committees, to proceed forward. All of us benefit from that, and definitely our constituents benefit.

Member after member has talked about this particular bill being an omnibus bill. Again, when I was standing up and the member made reference to some of my quotes, they were not 300-page documents, they were more like 600-page or 900-page documents, which affected laws that had nothing to do with the budget. The biggest criticism we hear in regard to the bill is that the infrastructure bank should not be a part of this particular budget implementation bill. That is the biggest criticism we are getting in terms of it being omnibus.

Let me suggest that the infrastructure bank is very relevant to the budget. In fact, this is something that was incorporated into the budget. What is the budget implementation bill that we are debating today? It is actions that are necessary to implementing the budget of 2017-18. This bill is in fact doing what it is meant to do, implementing budgetary measures, including what has been the biggest criticism from the opposition, both the NDP and the Conservatives, who have become close over the last number of months, and that is bringing in initiatives that are going to have an impact.

Let us think about the infrastructure bank and why it is so important. No government in the history of Canada, I would argue, has invested as much money in Canada's infrastructure in every region of this country. It is billions of dollars. We have a Prime Minister who is saying we can do even better than that, and that because of the neglect by the Conservative government, the demand for infrastructure is incredibly high. We have created yet another opportunity for some who might not have had that opportunity, even with the record numbers of billions of dollars, not to mention the hundreds of millions of dollars that leave our country, to invest in infrastructure in other countries because we do not have an infrastructure bank.

For the first time, unions and other stakeholders are going to have the opportunity to invest in Canada's infrastructure. We say that is a good thing.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be back in this House. I missed it for several months. I saw some amazing parts of this country, including Winnipeg. The member from Winnipeg is my friend. I was using a term in jest in my speech. However, I used the term “hubris” and to hear that speech just underscored the hubris that member is displaying.

I could refer to multiple quotes from the last Parliament where he criticized the use of omnibus legislation and time allocation when the Conservatives used them. He is now suggesting that he criticized it because it was an NDP failure, that of the official opposition. Only the Liberals are allowed to use time allocation and omnibus legislation. That is what I discerned from his speech.

If Conservatives use it, bad. If the NDP use it, bad. Only the enlightened Liberals, the natural governing party, can use it. It is that hubris that sets in and allows them to vote down the Canadian autism partnership, the national donor registry, and to cut the forces.

Could the hon. member tell us why he voted against the autism partnership funding? I would like a simple answer.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member talks about time allocation once again.

I would suggest that he have his interns do the research. Through their research, the interns will clearly find a number of examples where I talked, even when we were in third party, about the importance of responsible opposition parties. With responsible opposition parties, we can in fact get through a legislative agenda.

In regard to the autism partnership, when I spoke on the issue, I indicated it was very much a personal issue for me. I, too, have family members who are directly affected by autism. Let us not try to say that there is one answer to all situations.

I believe that the Minister of Health has her hand on the issue, and we will continue to move forward so that the people who need the necessary services will in fact get those services.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one has to question why we need extended sessions when probably one-fiftieth of the speech by the hon. member was actually with respect to the budget bill.

There is one thing that we do not find in the budget bill that is clearly a budget matter. It is not an issue that is simply being raised by one of the lowly opposition members over here, but a serious concern that was raised by the Auditor General of Canada. It is that the government promised it would expedite the removal of the perverse incentives for the fossil fuel industry. That is an important measure in allowing the renewable and energy efficiency sectors to compete, yet it is not in the budget. Could the member speak to why the government did not include that in its budget bill?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think if the member goes over the budget, and I look at it as the first budget flowing into the second budget, there are plenty of things within it that the NDP could have supported and chose not to, such as the special tax on Canada's wealthiest, the tax break for our middle class, the increase to the child benefit program, the increase to the guaranteed income supplement, not to mention the record-high infrastructure program and so much more.

I look to the member for Edmonton Strathcona to show what the NDP's position is on the issue of pipelines. That is something I believe the member would have done well with in terms of having more influence within her own caucus on an important issue for the province of Alberta, and in fact all of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately it sounds like the member is having some throat issues, so I guess the question would be whether anyone on that side had a lozenge for the member.

However, my real question is this. The member basically talked about how much the government is investing in infrastructure. All I have seen is that it has added more categories that people can apply to. It has said that it will be put in more money over a period of time, and it has added the infrastructure bank. It has also basically made it difficult for rural areas like mine, whether we are talking Kelowna or whatnot, to apply to the infrastructure bank. They cannot apply to that. It has also changed the criteria for those infrastructure funds and based it on per capita. Therefore, large urban municipalities like Toronto and Vancouver will have more opportunities with respect to the infrastructure bank and these categories. Why is the government basically slighting rural Canadians in favour of large urban centres?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is not necessarily the case. For example, we know that British Columbia received the second-largest investment in water infrastructure among all the other provinces. In fact, the Minister of Infrastructure just announced last week that a number of projects were done in a relatively short time span, within a couple of weeks. There was more money announced for that program than the Conservatives had announced in four years.

With respect to my sore throat, I appreciate the comments. I can assure the member that the Minister of Status of Women and other colleagues of mine came forward and provided me with everything from warm water with honey to all sorts of candies, so I am well taken care of. It is a great family to be a part of.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in this place and speak to Bill C-44, the budget implementation act. They say that all politics is local and it is important as members of Parliament to look at budgets, as specifically tonight we are debating that, and how they affect local communities. I want to tell members about Battle River—Crowfoot, about the people, the problems, and perhaps the policies that are creating some of those problems.

My riding is predominantly a rural riding. Our largest centre has around 18,000 people, but it is just under 45,000 square kilometres of agriculture and a lot of natural resources. Gas and oil are abundant in the riding. Because of that, it is quite obvious that much of the constituency is hurting right now. Communities are hurting. We know what the oil prices have done, so these communities are legitimately hurting. Many of the people calling my office work in the oil patch, some even part time. Some are farmers who in the wintertime work with welding crews, service trucks, and service companies dealing with it, and there has been no work for many of them over the last number of years.

Let me also say that when we come to a point in time after a long winter, typically people understand that the time around a new budget should be a time of optimism, a time where we say how the government is going to address our current circumstances. After we toured our constituency before the last budget, people asked what I thought the budget would have that would affect our communities, so we sat and we explained and we waited. Sadly, when the budget came down, people realized there was very little for rural Alberta, very little that would help the oil and gas sector.

We had a Prime Minister and a provincial premier who said that the one initiative they could put forward would be a new carbon tax, a new level of taxation, a tax on everything. Wherever I went in my constituency, I did not hear any people say that this was a positive measure that would help them in their circumstances.

I want to tell members about two communities in my constituency, the community of Hanna and the community of Forestburg, two communities that are situated in a special part of Alberta. In one case, Hanna is right around the special areas. These communities have pasture and grain. It's cattle country, but it's also gas and oil country. The other interesting thing about Hanna is that it has a coal generating power plant. This is a community that has been told it will lose over 200 jobs because of the imminent closure of the Sheerness coal power plant.

Home prices are already being affected. Councils, mayors, and people are asking what to do next. What should they expect from the government? What are the alternatives they could bring in to help sustain their communities? There is nothing in the budget that will help sustain them and nothing coming from the province. There has been very little as far as alternative types of ideas for those communities.

The other one is the Battle River power plant in the community of Forestburg. People work there from all over the county, a number of counties, Paintearth, Flagstaff, undoubtedly Camrose. Again, a smaller community of about 800 people is being negatively affected, and very little in this budget will help them.

I stand in this place and I say that if politics is local, then they forgot a great amount of my constituency of Battle River—Crowfoot. They have no idea how to replace the hundreds of jobs in those communities, and they will be lost. Even if we went to natural gas generation instead of coal, the difference is over 200 jobs compared with 40 jobs.

There are problems. Let me say this. All through most of the time I have served, we have had an unemployment rate in my constituency of around 3%. It would go down to a little bit under 3% then go up to a little bit over 3%. Even during the recession it was remarkably low compared with other parts of Alberta and across the country. My constituency right now has the highest unemployment rate in Alberta. In the month of March, it was 9.9% unemployment. The statistics coming out for April say that we are down to 9.7%, but still, there are a lot of people unemployed who want to work.

What initiatives do we have? We have a government that tells us not to worry; it will help with EI. Yes, it will increase the premiums on employers and employees, but it will also see what it can do to help EI. The answer to these problems is not in more social programs or programs to help keep people on unemployment. It is to get people back to work, to help create jobs.

In the other part of my riding we have agriculture, which is under a large cloud since last fall, with crops being left out in the field over the winter. I can recall when I was about five years old going out with my dad in the spring just to combine a few acres of wheat that had been left out. I remember how bad that was and how sick it made us feel over those winter months knowing that we would be going out in snowdrifts or maybe in the spring.

Thousands or maybe tens of thousands of acres in my constituency were left out. What does the budget say about that? The budget says we will do a consultation to see if we can take away the cash deferral that farmers use. That means if they sell their grain in the fall, they can defer the payment for it until the spring or after January 1. It helps them manage a little bit their income for the year. It also helps with storage on their farm, and typically we have problems with delivery.

These are issues. It seems as though every time there is a problem in Alberta and in my riding, the answer to the gas and oil industry is a new carbon tax. The answer to the agriculture crisis is taking away cash deferrals. This budget does not talk about the things that the Conservative budgets talked about, like being balanced, like lowering taxes, like more support for small businesses. When we have more revenues than expenditures, that is a surplus. That would be included as a balanced budget, but the government today has failed to deliver that.

In fact, when the Liberals came into power, they said that they would cap their spending at $10 billion, and it went close to $30 billion. They said they would balance the budget: “Have no fear, Canada, we will balance our budget by 2019.” Now it is 2055.

The level of optimism is over. The level of optimism by the Canadian people is over. Balanced budgets, lower taxes—these are the bedrock of a strong and growing community. Unfortunately, this budget does none of these things. For the second year in a row, the Liberals have blown by their $10-billion deficit pledge. They are raising taxes on everything from public transit to Uber. The government plans to nickel-and-dime Canadians to pay for its spending, and what has its spending accomplished? Nothing substantial. The last budget failed to grow the economy, failed to create the jobs the Liberals had promised, and it failed to deliver to a large degree the infrastructure they had promised. This budget is no different.

The Liberal government does not understand how to grow an economy. It does not understand that small businesses are the engine of our economy, representing over 90% of Canadian businesses and employing two-thirds of all Canadians. There was another broken promise. All political parties in the last election said they would reduce the small business tax rate from 11% to 10.5%, to 9.5%, to 9%. The Liberals immediately attacked the small business community and said, “No thanks.” Once again, it is a promise broken.

This side of the House is holding the government to account. Conservatives are holding the Liberals to account, but make no mistake, Liberals simply believe that big government is the answer to everything.

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

Mr. Speaker, as in any member's riding, we all lament the loss of economic opportunity or the loss of jobs. We also know that history will record accurately that the world price of oil fell during the time of the previous government and with a Conservative government in the province of Alberta. We also know that sometimes energy and agriculture suffer the vagaries of world markets.

Our government's response to that has been multi-faceted. We want to get oil to market through pipelines. We want to make sure the country understands, via a climate policy, that we are able to reconcile market access, the environment, and the fight against climate change. We want to build trade-enabling infrastructure that helps get wheat and grain to world markets. These are our responses to some of the economic challenges that I am sure the member is facing and that members face in the west.

I would ask the member to be very specific when I ask him what his policy prescriptions are in the context of his commitment to balance the budget at any cost. I would ask what his specific policy prescriptions are so that he might offer some hope to the folks in Alberta.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that is a fair question from the government side about the specific program initiatives that a government would take in spite of world prices being softened, as he said. First, I would say it is not always what one promotes; it is what one says it will not do. The very first thing I would say is that the carbon tax is not the answer to putting people back to work. A carbon tax that is dictated to the premiers to start administering is not the avenue for the oil and gas industry. It is piling onto the problems that the oil and gas sector are facing.

What are the answers to a balanced budget? The answer is not to only increase taxation. In fact, Conservatives lowered taxes and came to a balanced budget. In the first two years of the Conservatives governing, from 2006 to 2007, before the great recession took place, we paid down nearly $40 billion of Canadian national debt. When we already have a deficit, low job creation, and low economic growth, the answer is not a carbon tax that hurts absolutely everybody.

That is just one. If I had more time, I would gladly provide more ideas on how to build this economy.